Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Death of a Member

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of James Harold McCusker Esq, the hon. Member for Upper Bann. I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss that we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on the progress of the Channel tunnel rail link.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): British Rail and its private sector partner, Eurorail, are working to specify a route for the Channel tunnel rail link from Swanley in Kent to King's Cross. The aim is to introduce a parliamentary Bill for the project in November.

Mr. Townsend: Is it the Government's view that the rail link represents a major national project that will benefit all regions of this country, encourage the use of the railways

and protect the environment? If so, should not it be controlled and financed by a partnership of the Government, British Rail and the private sector?

Mr. Portillo: It is clear that Channel tunnel rail services represent such a partnership, because £1 billion of British Rail money is being spent on the first phase of improving rail links, even before the matter of a new line arises. It is right that the new line should be a commercial proposition, because it will be in competition with the airlines., ferries and other private modes of transport. I do not foresee any need for a public sector subsidy, but it is an appropriate project for British Rail and the private sector to operate as a joint venture.

Mr. Fearn: Does not the Minister agree that it would be sensible for British Rail to use the year that it now has to rethink its policy and use other methods, under which it could consider the comprehensive services that it offers? Does he agree that services to the north are not comprehensive and need further consideration?

Mr. Portillo: British Rail and its partner are using the year to consider some of the measures that the hon. Gentleman suggested, including the route from Swanley to King's Cross. British Rail brought forward a comprehensive plan on links to the other regions. It offers about 3 million seats from the regions to Paris and Brussels and a comprehensive series of freight services from every part of the country. That is a good plan, but if the hon. Gentleman has proposals on how it should be modified, I am sure that the last full stop has not been put to it.

Sir John Hunt: Is my hon. Friend aware that the prospect of Channel tunnel traffic hurtling along existing British Rail track in Bromley and elsewhere is horrific and totally unacceptable? Will he therefore look more closely and sympathetically than he has hitherto at the alternative proposals presented by Ove Arup and Partners, which provides for a national rail infrastructure with reduced environmental damage and disturbance?

Mr. Portillo: British Rail believes that until the turn of the century the new Channel tunnel services will be accommodated on the existing system without disrupting


commuter services, and it is important that they should be preserved. Together with its private sector partner, British Rail is considering whether extra capacity will be needed at about the turn of the century. Its private sector partner was chosen after competition, which included firms such as Ove Arup. Ove Arup's proposal includes making four tracks through much of Kent, which might be more environmentally damaging than the two tracks proposed by British Rail and its private sector partner.

Mr. Prescott: Do the Minister and the Secretary of State accept that if we are to get the best economic advantage for Britain and the north, with the least environmental damage to London and the south, we should repeal section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987? That would allow him and the Secretary of State to reassess the alternatives, so that Britain's national interests are catered for rather than the private interests of the City.

Mr. Portillo: That is a controversial proposal. Section 42 was approved by Parliament and enjoyed all-party support. That section stated that there should not be any subsidy to the Channel tunnel. The reason why that section was introduced and approved by Parliament was sound. Parliament did not want the Channel tunnel to undermine other forms of transport that had to get by without subsidy. What stands in our way is not just section 42 but its underlying principle, which commended itself to Parliament at the time.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I remind my hon. Friend that the fears for the Kent environment are very much alive. Will he, in his discussions with British Rail, ensure that British Rail does not backslide on the considerable measures that it has taken to protect the environment and which were built into its previously announced plans?

Mr. Portillo: British Rail and its private sector partner are well aware of the immense importance that the Government attach to environmental protection. The requirement that an environmental impact study should be published at the time will be part of the process of introducing a Bill on this subject. I hope that that is of some consolation to my hon. Friend, who has been a champion for his constituents in this matter.

Greater Manchester

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the level of funding for Greater Manchester passenger transport authority for 1990–91.

Mr. Portillo: The Government are making available to the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority £58 million in grant and credit approvals. We have given the go-ahead to the Manchester airport terminal 2, to the rail link to the airport and to the Manchester Metrolink light rail project.

Mr. Bennett: I thank the Minister for that information. Will he consider the possibility of increasing that funding, by instructing British Rail to make a refund to Greater Manchester passenger transport authority, because of British Rail's failure to provide the service that it was contracted to provide during the past 12 months? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that during that period—the Secretary of State has made this point—trains have been late or cancelled and service in the Greater Manchester

area has been totally inefficient? Does the hon. Gentleman further agree that a refund should be made to the authority and fares cut, not increased? British Rail should come up with the goods for paying passengers in Greater Manchester, instead of providing a poor-quality service.

Mr. Portillo: I have to be rather careful on this subject. As the hon. Gentleman may know, if the PTA decides to pursue a case against British Rail for non-performance because it feels that BR has let the passengers down, that case will ultimately go to Ministers who might have to arbitrate. I think, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I cannot comment much on this point. Fares are a matter for the PTA. The £58 million in grant and credit approvals that has been made available to Greater Manchester PTA is a substantial amount, which will enable a significant range of passenger projects to go ahead.

Mr. Favell: Of course, there is lots of jam tomorrow for the British Rail passenger in Greater Manchester, but what about now? As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, many trains have been late or cancelled and there is sheer, unadulterated misery for many commuters from Stockport and elsewhere in Greater Manchester. Has that arisen, as suggested in the press, because of the late delivery of Sprinter trains? If so, who is to blame? How did that happen? What is to be done about it? When can something be done?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend has done his constituents a great service in bringing their difficulties to my attention. I have great sympathy with those people in making difficult journeys. My hon. Friend identified one reason—late delivery of trains—but there have been unconnected reasons as well, such as delays in the work at Piccadilly station. It is not for me to attribute blame between the parties, but I am pleased to say that I understand that the class 158 Sprinters should be delivered in the spring and early summer, which should benefit my hon. Friend's constituents.

Electrification (Birmingham)

Mr. Snape: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his decision on the electrification of the Birmingham cross-city railway line.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): I announced last week the Government's approval to the electrification and re-equipment of the Birmingham cross-city rail line.

Mr. Snape: Opposition Members are grateful to the Secretary of State for that announcement, hurried though it appeared to be. We accept, of course, that there is no connection between his decision and the Mid-Staffordshire by-election that is to be held shortly. Will the Secretary of State now consider the extension of the Walsall-Hendnesford railway line to Rugeley, preferably on or before 15 March?

Mr. Parkinson: I believe that the county council is strongly opposed to the proposal, and I understand that the hon. Gentleman's party is in charge of that council. I am sure that when he tabled his question two weeks ago he


did not have the by-election in mind; nor, I think, did he have it mind to help the Conservative candidate and neither did I.

Mr. Roger King: Did my right hon. Friend chance to see the evening paper last week? Blazoned across the front page was the headline, "Cross City Rail Joy". That, of course, was the result of the extensive £37 million modernisation programme announced by my right hon. Friend. Is not this a reflection of the hard work done by many Members of Parliament in Birmingham and the areas surrounding it—particularly that of our late colleague John Heddle, who was in the vanguard of the campaign to bring a modernised rail service to his constituents?

Mr. Parkinson: Birmingham Members, especially Conservatives, have certainly been very assiduous in pressing the case for inner-city improvement in Birmingham, and the rail link—along with the heartlands spine road—is evidence of the Government's commitment to inner-city regeneration.

Mr. Allen: Is the Secretary of State aware that the rail link from Nottingham to London would cost——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does it go across Birmingham?

Mr. Allen: Yes. Is the Secretary of State aware that the link would cost a mere £95 million?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question concerns the Birmingham cross-city railway line.

Mr. Allen: The link referred to in the question is, of course, entirely unrelated to the by-election. Will the right hon. Gentleman call on some of his colleagues in Nottinghamshire to resign their seat so that we, too, can benefit from an electrification similar to that which is now benefiting the people of Lichfield?

Mr. Parkinson: I thought that the question was a pretty feeble joke when the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) put it on the Order Paper. Conservative Members do not regard the Humber bridge as a desirable precedent, and therefore do not intend to follow it.

Civil Aviation

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government's competition policy with regard to civil aviation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): Our policy is to promote competition throughout civil aviation, with, of course, proper safeguards against anti-competitive behaviour. We have played a leading role in the European Community's progress towards a freer market in aviation.

Mr. Steen: I thank the Minister for the robust way in which he personally is pursuing the Government's important competition policy. Is he aware, however, that unfortunately Italy, Spain and Germany are not prepared to recognise the EC directive on competition? As a result British Airways, with its block, and Air France, with its anti-competitive arrangements with Lufthansa, are freezing out the smaller, independent airlines and preventing them from competing with the big boys. If we

are not to see a repeat of the Laker episode—and we have already seen signs at Gatwick that that may be happening—what policy have the Government to help the smaller airlines to compete in Europe, especially with countries that will not support the EC directive?

Mr. McLoughlin: Many of the points that my hon. Friend has brought up are very important; his remarks about competition policy must be addressed by the European Commissioner who has responsibility for competition. It is important that we put the user first. We must allow competition so that the passenger obtains the full benefit of what we hope will be a freer aviation market, which we hope will lead to cheaper fares in the long term.

Mr. Colvin: I welcome the package of liberalisation measures agreed in Brussels on 1 December, but what arrangements are being made for the introduction of transitional arrangements between now and 1993—arrangements on which much of the growth in competition will depend?

Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend has raised an important point, relating to the whole question of progress towards a freer aviation market. As I said, such matters as takeovers and mergers must be dealt with by competition policy, and primarily involve my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. A number of cases are under consideration at present. However, there is nothing to stop the industry preparing for 1992 and its consequences.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give us an update about what he is doing to improve air transport from Greater Manchester, particularly from Manchester international airport, and tell us how the negotiations on getting routes across the north Atlantic are progressing?

Mr. McLoughlin: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently met the Secretary of Transportation in the United States and another meeting is planned in the near future. We are very hopeful and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are exceptionally keen to see links from Manchester to the United States. We have done a lot of work to that end and we shall continue to work vigorously on that policy. I hope that we shall see a successful conclusion, as the hon. Gentleman was right to say that this has been continuing for some time.

Humber Bridge

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current estimated deficit being carried by the Humber bridge board; and what plans he has to review the situation of the board.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): The debt on the Humber bridge is about £342 million. We are working with the bridge board on financial projections that it will use to support its detailed case for Government assistance.

Mr. Cran: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the saga of the Humber bridge debt has gone on far too long and that that is illustrated by the fact that a debt next year of about £400 million is projected, with interest charges being clocked up to the tune of £1 a second? Everyone believes


that the matter should be resolved, including the Government. Will my hon. Friend tell us what impediments there are to an agreement?

Mr. Atkins: We are waiting for several things, and we hope to be able to make a decision in the not-too-distant future. However, my hon. Friend has been a champion of the need to resolve concern about the bridge, and he will be aware that we shall do what we can as quickly as we can, but he will have to wait a little longer yet.

Ms. Ruddock: Is not that an admission that tolls are not a success and that where they pay their way they cause great congestion, for example in Dartford, and where they do not pay their way, they force operators to raise tolls to such a level that they are a grave disincentive to local business, for example on Humberside and Merseyside? Is the Minister aware that the only alternative to raising tolls to such a level in Merseyside is an extra £10 per person on the poll tax? Surely it is time that the Government reviewed their policy on tolls and provided help for Humberside and Merseyside.

Mr. Atkins: As I think everyone is aware, the Humber bridge was build by Barbara Castle to ensure a by-election victory for a Labour candidate in Hull. Typically, therefore, it was not costed properly and it will never make money. Therefore, the taxpayer may have to foot some of the Bill. That is not the sort of argument to which I am prepared to be party.

Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend the Minister must bear the £342 million in mind, but I hope that he will not allow that to become an overriding factor when considering the link road between the south and north of England——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will that link be via the Humber bridge?

Mr. Holt: Yes, via the Humber bridge. The last thing that we want is to subsidise the Humber bridge loss by having the link road run up the east coast of England when it should run parallel to the A1. I understand from the Secretary of State that it will take 14 years for the road to be opened after it has been agreed. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not allow the waste of money with regard to the Humber bridge to stop us in the north-east of England from having our proper motorway.

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend, as always, champions the cause of greater and better infrastructure for his constituency and for his constituents, in a manner to which we have become accustomed. He will know that the east coast motorway is being considered by a private consortium at the moment and we shall be interested to learn the results of that investigation. My hon. Friend would do well to press his case, as he normally does, and we shall do what we can to meet his concern.

Traffic Area Office, Cardiff

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make it his policy to retain his Department's present traffic area office in Cardiff to ensure that matters involving Wales are dealt with in the Principality.

Mr. Atkins: The importance of the Principality is such that I can confirm that I am retaining the traffic area office in Cardiff.

Mr. Michael: I welcome that lifting of the threat to the Cardiff office. It is obviously good news to us in south Wales, where the threat of closure was causing considerable worry. Does the Minister agree that traffic examiners form an important part of the service, and complement the work of the transport office in Cardiff? In view of the use that is made of them, will the Minister assure the House that traffic examiners' work will be continued and that it will stay under the direction of the office in Cardiff?

Mr. Atkins: I am delighted that my decision has pleased the hon. Gentleman and all Welshmen. I cannot confirm all the details that he would wish, because we are still looking at the matter. We value the importance of the Cardiff office. When we finalise the plans for the whole Principality, I shall be in a better position to give him more details.

British Rail

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what subjects he expects to discuss with him.

Mr. Parkinson: I regularly meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss a variety of railway issues. The last meeting took place on 17 January, and I next plan to meet the chairman tomorrow.

Mr. Knox: When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets the chairman tomorrow, will he draw his attention to the inconvenience that is caused to the rail-travelling public by the often marginal twice-yearly changes in InterCity train services? Will he draw his attention to the fact that printed information about alterations to the timetable is often not available beforehand?

Mr. Parkinson: I shall draw those points to the attention of the chairman of British Rail.

Mr. Rees: Will the Secretary of State congratulate the chairman on the excellent advertisement about InterCity trains? However, when I travelled from Leeds yesterday on Intercity trains, the advertisement bore no relationship to reality. It would be helpful if we knew that trains are not going to run on time, that we must change at Doncaster and that we shall arrive in London an hour and a half late. The same thing happens going the other way. It would be a good idea if somebody told us that we shall be late for appointments.

Mr. Parkinson: I shall draw those points to the attention of the chairman. Included in the objectives that we have set for the next three years are not only financial but performance objectives, including punctuality and cleanliness. The results will be announced at regular intervals. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to see the improvements for himself.

Mr. Adley: When my right hon. Friend sees the chairman tomorrow, will he explain that, since 1980, the public service obligation grant that the Government make


available to British Rail has never reached £1 billion? Every year since 1980, the West German federal railways public service obligation grant has exceeded £3 billion. Will my right hon. Friend explain to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that one reason why trains are constantly late is insufficient money for staff and for on-going improvements, to keep the service up to scratch?

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend knows that I totally disagree with his diagnosis. I have not met any German transport Minister who is proud of the subsidy. They think that it is an outrage that the German taxpayer is forking out £3 billion a year to subsidise the railways.

Mr. Snape: Will the Secretary of State discuss with the chairman of British Rail his recent disgraceful comments on a radio programme two weeks ago, to the effect that long-distance commuters must pay an extra 40 per cent. on what are already among the highest railway fares in Europe? Does the Secretary of State think that such stupid and ill-informed comments will endear the Conservative party to commuters in the south of England who, for years, have made the silly mistake of voting Conservative?

Mr. Parkinson: The stupid and ill-informed comments have just come from the hon. Gentleman. As the hon. Gentleman knows, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) had my job a year ago, he announced that long-distance commuters, who represent 18,000 of British Rail's customers—less than one half of 1 per cent.—were receiving a discount of over 60 per cent. on their season tickets. They were paying less per journey than the cheapest discounted off-peak ticket. He felt that that gap should be closed, but he never said that they should pay 100 per cent. This year, on an annual basis, the cost of season tickets has been increased by 13·5 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should get a grip of the facts, stop relying on his prejudices and start talking sense.

Mr. Prescott: See you on Wednesday.

Mr. Burns: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Rail, will he raise with him on behalf of my 12,000 commuting constituents the cleanliness of trains and their timekeeping? What will be the benefits to the Chelmsford to Liverpool street line as a result of the record investment that was announced by his Department into services on Network SouthEast?

Mr. Parkinson: I welcome the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who shouted, "See you on Wednesday", to his first televised Question Time—the rest of us have been here three times.
I have good news for my hon. Friend: the whole of the Liverpool street signalling system is being modernised and work on his line, costing £19 million, is due to begin in the early part of 1991.

Transport 2000

Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met representatives from the group Transport 2000; and what was discussed.

Mr. Parkinson: I had an informal and broad-ranging meeting with the chairman of Transport 2000 on 24

January, and I shall be meeting shortly representatives of a number of transport and environmental groups, including Transport 2000.

Dr. Thomas: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply and for his willingness to meet the group. At the meeting will he pay particular attention to the correspondence between the Minister for Roads and Traffic and Transport 2000 because the Minister has clearly not stated the real status and objectives of the road-building traffic forecasts? What does the Secretary of State regard as the objectives of traffic forecasting in relation to new road-building schemes?

Mr. Parkinson: It has never been the Government's policy that all traffic forecast demands must be met. In the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity", we spelt out clearly that it would be neither sensible nor economic to remove all congestion. Like all other programmes, the roads programme is governed by what the country can afford. That has always been the case and represents no change of policy.

Mr. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many transport organisations, including Transport 2000, are increasingly concerned about the effect of road-building programmes on the environment and about the need for a better system of compensation for those affected? Following his most forthcoming answer last time he was top for questions and the answer from the Prime Minister the following day, which was surprising in some respects, will he consider publishing a Green Paper on compensation for those affected by road-building programmes?

Mr. Parkinson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend did not mean to imply that it was unusual for two Ministers in the same Government to say similar things on consecutive days. I should have thought that that was absolutely normal. We are aware of the problems caused by blight and compensation. I am in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I hope to have some news for my right hon. Friend in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Prescott: Now that the Secretary of State accepts that it is impossible to have a road-building programme to meet his Department's estimate of the projected demand for the use of private vehicles, does that mean that he accepts that we shall have to restrict use of the private car, especially in our cities? Does he still believe that that is an eastern European solution, or has he now had his talk with the Secretary of State for the Environment?

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman is as opaque about his transport policy as the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was about his rates policy at the weekend. The hon. Gentleman is a great one for exploiting disasters. He is never happier than when he is miserable and trying to make the rest of us miserable as well. In the next three years, we have programmes for roads amounting to £5·7 billion and programmes for rail, underground and public transport amounting to £6 billion.

Disabled People

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to improve mobility of the disabled.

Mr. Atkins: We want all concerned to recognise and cater for the needs of this important sector of the community. Our plans are set out comprehensively in the document "Transport and Disability: A Statement of Aims and Priorities".

Mr. Carrington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware that access for disabled people to London's buses and the Underground leaves a great deal to be desired. What has been the response to his Department's initiatives on the design of buses to enable access for the disabled? Will he undertake to ensure that in the massive rebuilding and refurbishment that is under way on London Underground, access for the disabled is kept as a top priority?

Mr. Atkins: As ever, I have worked closely with the disabled persons transport advisory committee which was set up by my Department in 1985 to advise us on such matters. It has produced guidance for the elderly and disabled on the use of buses in particular. My hon. Friend will be grateful for the knowledge that I am about to impart to him: most of the advice that has been received is about simple, cheap and effective ways to help people, and they are being widely adopted. His point about London Underground is well understood. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is working hard on the matter and we shall do what we can to meet my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Leighton: Will the Minister consider the wretched state of Stratford station in east London? Is he aware that it is a busy junction of British Rail, Central and Docklands light railway lines? The tripod barrier makes it almost impossible for anyone to pass through, whether disabled or not. Then there is almost a half-mile walk to the platform. The waiting-rooms have not been decorated since the second world war and the lavatories do not work. Such conditions would not be tolerated in a station in the west end of London, so why should the people of east London tolerate them?

Mr. Atkins: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman knows the stations in his constituency better than I do. I understand that Stratford is due for redevelopment shortly.

Mr. Leighton: The plans have been cancelled.

Mr. Atkins: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Stratford station is due for redevelopment and access for the disabled will be taken into account when that redevelopment takes place.

Mr. Hannam: Is my hon. Friend aware that most buses and minibuses are still largely inaccessible to severely disabled people? Can he give the House an idea of the progress being made in bringing new designs into use?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend speaks with considerable authority on matters relating to the disabled. He is a member of my advisory committee, and who better. I confirm that I am working extremely hard, with all the Ministers in my Department, to ensure that access for the disabled is a high priority.

Integrated Transport Policy

Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to present an integrated transport policy to Parliament before 1992.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: We are pursuing a balanced policy, with record levels of investment over the next three years, to improve all aspects of the transport system.

Sir David Steel: That sounds absolutely marvellous. Is not the difficulty that the outgoing chairman of British Rail has given a clear warning to the Government about the levels of investment in both line and rolling stock required for 1992? Is he aware that road users want more traffic taken off the roads and put on the railways and that airport congestion could be eased if there were an improved railway system and fewer short-haul flights? That is why an integrated transport system is needed.

Mr. Parkinson: The only countries in Europe with a fully integrated transport system that we have located are East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Russia. Their electors do not seem terribly impressed with their integrated transport systems or with the people who tried to develop them.

M1, West Yorkshire

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the M1-M62 link road in west Yorkshire to be started; what it is projected to cost; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Civil engineering consultants have recently been appointed to investigate possible route alignments for this new link road. Subject to the completion of statutory procedures, construction work could start in the late 1990s.
The initial estimated cost is £54 million.

Mr. Riddick: My hon. Friend's statement will be widely welcomed by local Members of Parliament and councillors of all political parties who lobbied his predecessor in favour of the scheme last year. Instead of building a dual carriageway to alleviate traffic congestion in west Yorkshire, may I suggest a motorway? May we have an assurance that environmental considerations will be taken fully into account when planning the scheme and that every opportunity will be provided for local residents who will be affected to have their say?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend has pressed his case strongly with my predecessor and since. I am grateful, as I am sure his constituents are, for his skill in doing so. He will know, as everyone on this side of the House does, that we are highly committed to environment matters in relation to building new roads. For example, we plant more trees than any other organisation except the Forestry Commission.

M25

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about future improvements to the M25.

Mr. Atkins: We propose to widen the M25 to dual four lanes. We shall also issue soon an action plan for the motorway following up the recent consultants' review which will propose a range of further improvements.

Mr. Marshall: Although I congratulate my hon. Friend on his proposals to improve the M25, which is Britain's longest traffic jam, may I suggest that by the 21st century they will be inadequate? Will he consider building a son of the M25, an outer M25, to relieve the congestion on that motorway?

Mr. Atkins: I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean to suggest that somehow the M25 was bad news. It is extremely good news. It is, by definition, a victim of its own success. Many people in villages on either side of it who suffered from congestion and environmental disadvantage before it was constructed are considerably better off. My hon. Friend's points about the improvement of the M25 are well taken, but he will understand that if it passed through his constituency, he might take a different view.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Arts Funding (West Midlands)

Mrs. Golding: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he intends to meet the director of West Midlands Arts to discuss what effect the uniform business rate may have on arts funding in the west midlands.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Luce): I have no plans to do so. The Arts Council is looking into the effects of the change on a sample of its clients among arts bodies nationwide and I am asking it to keep me informed.

Mrs. Golding: Is the Minister aware that many people are worried about the impact of the poll tax on the many arts buildings that do not have charitable status? Is he further aware that the main public library in my constituency faces a rate increase of 24 per cent. and that the main headquarters library in Stafford faces an increase of 55 per cent? Does he see that as a poll tax on reading?

Mr. Luce: The question is about the uniform business rate. The hon. Lady will realise that under the new law and rules an arts organisation that is a charitable body will receive up to 80 per cent. mandatory relief and that it is within the discretion of the local authority to give relief on the remaining 20 per cent. If an arts organisation is not a charitable body, it is subject to the normal law, as are all other businesses in the area. Obviously, it is impossible to have a clear picture of how the rate will affect different arts organisations in the area.

Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the uniform business rate will have a bad effect on many craftsmen in the west midlands and elsewhere, and that many craftsmen's shops and artists' studios are being significantly uprated? Will he promise to discuss this matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment?

Mr. Luce: I acknowledge the importance of the growing number of craftsmen in this country. A considerable number are classified as business people and to that extent will be subject to the new rules and regulations. I will

discuss this issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Evironment, but if they are classified as businesses they should not be treated as exceptions.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister should not be so complacent. He should examine the position in the west midlands and elsewhere. It is not good enough to come to the Dispatch Box and say that he is not sure how the uniform business rate will affect the arts. He should find out. That is his job and he should do it.

Mr. Luce: The Department of the Environment estimates that, after the introduction of the uniform business rates, small businesses and businesses as a whole in the west midlands will pay less rate. Of course, it is impossible to be precise. Some arts organisations that are businesses will find that the amount they have to pay has declined, whereas others will find that their charge has increased. The important point about which we have to be absolutely clear is that organisations that are classified as charitable bodies will be in no worse a position. Indeed, with local authorities having full authority to give complete relief, they should be in a better position.

Public Lending Right

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Minister for the Arts what he intends to provide for public lending right in the next financial year; and to how many authors this applies.

Mr. Luce: Funding for the public lending right in 1990–91 is £3·5 million. The registrar forecasts that approximately 15,500 authors will receive payment in February 1991.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that our authors deserve generous support, and does he have any plans to increase support in the near future?

Mr. Luce: It is very important that we continue to support authors through the public lending right for their contribution, through the library system, to public reading. In 1988–89 I was able to increase the budget by 27 per cent; in 1991–92 I should be able to increase it by 29 per cent; and in the following year, under the three-year funding rule, I shall be injecting an extra £250,000. The fund remains very strong and is making a contribution to authors whose work is of much value to the public.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that this kind of money goes to people whose faces fit? There is something that I should like him to consider seriously. Many of the people who were made redundant from the mining industry in Nottinghamshire have become writers. Those people need some encouragement, so the Minister should get off his backside and put some money in their direction. He should stop looking after Front-Bench Members who are writing books.

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman's performance gets more dramatic every time he speaks. Last time I recommended him for a drama award; I think that this time I shall recommend him for a book award.

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister promised me a drama award last time, but I have not yet received it.

Mr. Luce: A neutral panel is considering the matter.
It is impossible to be precise about the varying effects. Some will gain, whereas others will lose, but it is absolutely clear that those with charitable status will not lose.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one author who will benefit from this measure is Mr. Salman Rushdie? Is it not time for everyone in this country and elsewhere to accept the ancient saying:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that matter. I join my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in condemning most strongly the threat to Mr. Rushdie, which has been renewed recently. I endorse every word that my hon. Friend has said. One of the cardinal principles of our democracy is freedom of expression. It is a principle which we must uphold to the last.

Local Government Act

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Arts what guidelines exist for arts funding bodies that seek advice on section 28 of the Local Government Act.

Mr. Luce: In July 1988, the Arts Council, in conjunction with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) has had his question. He need not discuss the matter across the Chamber.

Mr. Luce: In July 1988, the Arts Council, in conjunction with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, issued guidance on section 28 to arts organisations and other voluntary bodies. At the same time, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment issued guidance to local authorities.

Mr. Hughes: Is it possible for one company to act within the law by being funded by local authorities to perform a play with a homosexual theme, and at the same time act against the law in the sense that the local education authority decides that the play is unsuitable for showing in its schools? If not, can the Minister have a word with his colleagues in Tory-run Kent county council, who, when offered the chance to host Britten's "Death in Venice", played by the publicly funded Glyndebourne touring company, decided that it was unsuitable for showing in the Kent and Sussex schools festival—possibly because it breached section 28? Other Tory authorities do the same. Surely the principle needs to be established, and everybody should be allowed the most liberal interpretation of it.

Mr. Luce: The only basis upon which section 28 can be flouted is if a local authority sets out an intention to promote homosexuality. I have no evidence that Kent county council in any way demonstrated that intention and there is no evidence to suggest that it was flouting that law.

Arts Funding (East Midlands)

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Minister for the Arts what proposals he has to increase funding for the arts in the east midlands.

Mr. Luce: The funding of arts organisations is a matter for the Arts Council. In 1990–91 its grant to East Midlands Arts will increase by 10 per cent. and, taken with its direct spending in the region, amounts to a total of nearly £5 million.

Mr. Vaz: Is the Minister aware that last week the board of directors of the Haymarket theatre announced losses of £500,000 in the past year? Is he also aware that the board will be meeting tonight and that it will make 13 employees of the theatre redundant? Will the Minister arrange for his officials to speak to the directors of the theatre to see whether the Government can provide funding to enable those jobs to be saved?

Mr. Luce: I am aware of the important role of the Haymarket theatre in Leicester and the surrounding area, and in 1988 I had the pleasure of visiting the theatre. It has a high reputation, but I realise that it has acquired a deficit of some size. It is up to every management to cut its coat according to the cloth available. I understand that the Arts Council has increased its financing for that theatre next year by 7 per cent. and, of course, funding comes from local authorities and other areas. Once the management has cut its coat accordingly I hope that it will be possible for it to ensure that the theatre moves forward to produce its normal high-quality work.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Women Civil Servants

Mr. Gow: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many women are employed in the Civil Service as a whole; and what proportion this is of the total so employed.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): There are 265,000 women in the Civil Service. That constitutes 45 per cent. of all staff.

Mr. Gow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) and I believe in the innate superiority of women? Do not the figures given by my right hon. Friend show that no rebuke should be delivered to the Minister for the Civil Service? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that those figures could equally well have been achieved without the equal opportunities legislation?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right to pay tribute to the ability of women in the Civil Service as much as anywhere else. Given the total size of the Civil Service, it is right and good that nearly half our civil servants are women. However, at the senior levels—in the top grades—only 6 per cent. are women. But an increasing number of women are coming in under the high fliers scheme—just under 50 per cent. are now recruited from that scheme. I am sure that in the 1990s, with full equality of opportunity—I believe that that is what my hon. Friend is stressing as so important—more women will come to the top.

Nottinghamshire

Mr. Allen: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what recent representations he has received from Nottinghamshire regarding matters within his responsibilities.

Mr. Luce: I am not aware of any such representations.

Mr. Allen: I thank the Minister and his colleagues for their intervention in the relocation of the Inland Revenue to Nottingham. Will the Minister commend the efforts of the county council in securing that relocation, particularly the chairman of its finance committee, Councillor Paddy Tipping? Will the right hon. Gentleman keep an eye on liaison and co-ordination between Government Departments and public bodies during relocations so that the difficulties that arose in this instance between British Rail, the Inland Revenue and landholdings do not recur?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and glad that a sizeable number of civil servants are moving to the Nottingham area—including not just the Inland Revenue, with more than 2,000, but the Driving Standards Agency headquarters which is to open in, I think, April with about 100 staff. I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I am glad that the pace of relocation from the south-east to other areas is quickening, and that larger numbers of civil servants are moving to other areas.

Senior Professionals (Secondment)

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what further steps he is taking to encourage the secondment into the Civil Service of industrialists and other senior professionals.

Mr. Luce: More exchanges have taken place in recent years and the Government are determined to continue the upward trend.

Mr. Field: Why, of the 12 competitions held for the agencies set up by the Government, has only one outsider been appointed, Mr. David Beeton, to the Royal Historic Palaces Agency? There are also two directors-designate who will come from outside the Civil Service. Conversely, how many of the First Division Association have been seconded to industry?

Mr. Luce: I cannot give a precise answer on the latter point. In the past 10 years the number of exchanges between the Civil Service and the private sector and commerce has almost doubled. In addition, there have been 500 exchanges between the Government and the non-commercial sector, including local government. We want to encourage that. The Government's policy is to encourage open competitions for the appointment of chief executives of agencies. We want to select people on their merit and get the best possible people to serve in those posts. There have been a number of open competitions but, as my hon. Friend said, only one non-civil servant been selected for the job. That does not mean that others may not be selected in the future.

Trade Unions

Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service trade unions; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met trade union representatives from the Civil Service; and what issues were discussed.

Mr. Luce: I met members of the National Union of Civil and Public Servants on 29 January to discuss physical security of Government establishments.

Mr. Fisher: When the Minister next meets union representatives, will he give them a guarantee that those agencies which there is no immediate intention to privatise will remain in place for a minimum of five years to provide both stability and prospects for those working in them?

Mr. Luce: Although I do not know whether it is right or wrong to set a time scale—I shall reflect on that point—the Government's policy is clear. Our first priority is to assess whether a service of Government is better suited to privatisation. If the Government decide that that is not so, the next option is to consider whether it should be an agency. It must be assumed that, in most circumstances, it will remain an agency for the foreseeable future. However, that does not preclude privatisation in the longer term.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the huge uncertainty and concern of people who are notified that their jobs are to disappear in Southend and be transferred to Liverpool or who are told that their services are being privatised? Does the Minister agree that it would be helpful and in the interests of good industrial relations if everyone so affected was issued with a sheet of paper explaining what will happen to their pension rights and security of employment and what employment rights they have? Should not the Government set an example to private employers to tell employees about their rights and obligations if their jobs are affected because of Government policy?

Mr. Luce: I am very much aware that a considerable number of officials—particularly in Customs and Excise—work in my hon. Friend's constituency. I will convey to my noble Friend the Paymaster-General, who is in charge of relocation policies some of my hon. Friend's views. I shall reflect carefully on his points. Several movements are taking place in Customs and Excise. Some headquarters are being moved out of London to Southend, and a greater number of staff are moving to areas outside the south-east. As my hon. Friend knows, that is part of the Government's policy to encourage relocation wherever possible.

Dr. Marek: When the Minister reflects on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) will he also reflect on the advisability of giving a guarantee to all civil servants who find themselves in agencies that are liable to be privatised that they will be retained in the Civil Service by being transferred to another part of it?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman always misunderstands what the agency system is about. If the Government decide to establish an agency rather than privatise an organisation, the officials in that agency remain part of the Civil Service. There is no question of a change in their status. The hon. Gentleman's question is misleading; I am glad to have this chance to reaffirm the position.

Mr. Bowis: When my right hon. Friend last heard from the Civil Service unions, were they able to congratulate


him on the first high promotion of a female part-time civil servant, and, secondly, on the introduction of two days' paternity leave for civil servants whose wives have babies?

Mr. Luce: I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that the number of women part-timers in the Civil Service has risen to 12 per cent. of the complement. The fact that we have much more flexible employment policies and encourage part-timers is attracting more able women to serve. Over the past few years I have been surrounded by very able female advisers, many of whom have been part-timers.

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what recent meetings he has had with Civil Service trade unions; and what items were discussed.

Mr. Luce: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).

Mr. Skinner: As the Minister has been discussing the privatisation of parts of the Civil Service, would it not be a good idea if the Government, for the first time, allowed the Civil Service unions to hold a ballot on whether their members want to take part in a privatisation scheme?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman must agree that the most important factor is how whatever service we are considering can be most effectively managed for the country. If the Government take the view that it can be more effectively managed through privatisation, that is one road. If the hon. Gentleman wants a better use of our resources—it is taxpayers' money—he will accept that the other route to more effective management is to create agencies. Both routes are based on the criteria of good value for money and the best use of resources.

South Africa

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs if he will make a statement on Government policy towards South Africa following the release of Nelson Mandella.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): We warmly welcome the release of Nelson Mandela. He symbolises the aspirations of millions of South Africans for a non-racial democratic South Africa.
Since Mr. de Klerk became president, he has transformed the policy of the South African Government. He has initiated a series of steps including the commitment to abolish much of the remains of so-called petty apartheid, the unbanning of political organisations and now the release of Nelson Mandela. All these steps have been demanded time and again by the British Government, by the international community and by the House. Taken together, they create a completely new climate in South Africa—a climate in which dialogue can begin about the massive task of dismantling apartheid peacefully. This new climate presents a decisive challenge to those, black and white, who wish to maintain the old orthodoxies of confrontation.
We urge the African National Congress, the Pan-Africanist Congress, the Inkatha movement, the various white parties and all other political organisations in South Africa to rise to this challenge, end violence, and enter negotiations.
It is vital to send a signal to the white community that President de Klerk's steps will find a response from the international community. That is why the British Government believe that it makes sense to stop discouraging investment and tourism in South Africa.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, having consistently called for the release of Mr. Nelson Mandela for many years, we in the Labour party express our profound satisfaction that he is no longer in prison? We emphasise that he should never have been in prison in the first place. We welcome his release and other recent steps taken by President de Klerk. We trust that successful negotiations will soon begin to bring about a South Africa with a vote for every man and woman on a common roll.
Is the right hon Gentleman aware that although Mr. Mandela is no longer in prison, he is not a free man? He cannot live where he chooses. He has no vote. For him and for the rest of the non-white majority in South Africa, that country continues to be a prison and it will be until apartheid and the police state are completely dismantled.
Does the Secretary of State recollect the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Kuala Lumpur last October.? The Prime Minister signed up—to use her phraseology—a statement which affirmed that the:
justification for sanctions against South Africa
was
to abolish apartheid by bringing Pretoria to the negotiating table and keeping it there until that change was irreversibly secured".
As that objective to which the Prime Minister put her signature has clearly not been achieved, how can she call

for relaxation in sanctions—particularly the ban on direct investment, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred?
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ban has been responsible for one third of the 100 billion rand of losses to the South African economy caused by sanctions over the past four years? It is by far the most effective sanction. Is not that precisely why the Prime Minister wants to end that sanction?
Mr. Mandela has called for sanctions to be maintained. Should we trust the British Prime Minister, whose every action has been to prop up apartheid, or should we pay heed to Mr. Mandela, who has given more than 27 years of his life fighting the injustice of apartheid?
The world has made its choice, and that is why the Prime Minister is isolated in the United Nations, isolated in the Commonwealth and isolated in the European Community. It is no thanks to her, but with all thanks and praise to Mr. Mandela and the millions of other Africans fighting for justice, that apartheid is doomed and will be destroyed.

Mr. Waldegrave: It is characteristic of the right hon. Member not to say a word of recognition about the courage shown in the steps that Mr. de Klerk has taken.
The sanctions that were introduced in 1986—and some of them will continue—by the European Community were aimed explicitly at bringing about a national dialogue. Mr. Mandela has said that he believes that national dialogue is liable to begin within days. If we do not recognise the courage behind the steps that have been taken—and that I hope will be taken, in response, by the other side—we would not be doing the right thing. The House is owed an explanation by the right hon. Member, on behalf of his party, whether its policy is to step up mandatory sanctions. If that remains its policy, Opposition Members are, as usual, completely out of touch.

Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a lot of support from Conservative Members for what he has said, and especially for his welcome for the release of Mr. Mandela?
If we hope for the survival of Mr. Gorbachev should not we equally hope for the survival of Mr. de Klerk, as long as white majority rule continues?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition appear to be too obtuse to understand that there is a serious danger of a Right-wing backlash from some elements of the white population—possibly among the Afrikaners or even among the security forces, which could be accentuated if there is no recognition given by the outside world to the dramatic and imaginative steps that President de Klerk has announced?

Mr. Waldegrave: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I find it depressing that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has used his eloquence to try to get a dialogue going in the Arab-Israel conflict, and has expressed enthusiasm for and welcomed the Soviet Union into the community of nations, but he is so blinkered that he cannot see the window of opportunity here, and the possibility for real progress in South Africa. To let that slip by sticking in the old tired positions would be a terrible waste of opportunity.

Sir David Steel: Does the Minister accept that yesterday some of us were


simply appalled when we found that the first words that the Prime Minister could bring herself to utter on the momentous release of Nelson Mandela were about increasing British investment in South Africa? Will he try to get her to understand that the best way to secure British investment in South Africa is to pay more attention in future to the views of the ANC and other movements that are pressing for the future of democracy in that country? While President de Klerk is, of course, to be congratulated on the brave steps that he has taken, does the Minister accept that South Africa cannot be treated as a normal state until the legal entrenchment of apartheid is lifted?

Mr. Waldegrave: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on one point. The Prime Minister's first words were an expression of delight; which, I am sure, is shared by all hon. Members; at Mr. Mandela's release. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that South Africa is at the beginning of a long process. We say that surely we must recognise—as we are trying to do in relation to the Soviet Union and the Palestine Liberation Organisation—that those who wish to sit down and negotiate need our support. If we do not provide any response at all the right hon. Gentleman will surely blame us when the white backlash sweeps de Klerk away.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: While recognising that risk and the reality of what my right hon. Friend says, may I ask him whether he should not differentiate between the relaxation of some sanctions now unilaterally by Britain and the encouragement worldwide of doing away with sanctions overall? The Government have made subtle and positive contributions to bringing about what has happened in South Africa. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will continue their subtle handling of this matter?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. Those who are opposed to dialogue in South Africa know very well the position of the British Government. That is why white extremists have been shooting at the British embassy in Pretoria. As my hon. Friend says, our approach remains careful and, I hope, subtle. We want to see de Klerk's position strengthened because, as Mr. Mandela has said in the most eloquent language, de Klerk stands honourably for dialogue.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On this momentous occasion of historic importance, which has brought great joy to millions of people throughout the world, will the Minister reflect on what has been happening over the weekend in relation to Government policy? Does he recognise the great hand of reconciliation that has been offered by Nelson Mandela? Does he recognise that the pillars of apartheid remain in place and that Nelson Mandela has said that until those pillars are substantially removed and there are substantial negotiations, sanctions must stay? Instead of always talking about offering carrots to President de Klerk, what about offering a little comfort and support to the people of South Africa instead of the contemptible, craven attitude that we get from the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Waldegrave: All the people of South Africa, black and white, need our support and hands from both sides

have been reaching out for reconciliation. The steps that we have taken are to support that process and I am sure that we are right so to do.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Mr. Mandela's support for the continued armed struggle is a chilling reminder that, regrettably, violence is still a part of African National Congress policy? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lifting of sanctions will ensure the prosperity of the black South African and that it is only under such conditions that the world can reasonably hope for peaceful reform and meaningful change?

Mr. Waldegrave: At his press conference this morning, Mr. Mandela spoke about the need for peace and said that he foresaw dialogue soon. We should surely concentrate on what he is saying and on such elements of the present situation. We should be seeking to support that hope of reconciliation.

Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) was one of the most notorious apologists for the South African regime.
Will the Minister explain why the Prime Minister has simply refused to recognise that the pressure of the international community and the liberation movement in South Africa brought about the release of Nelson Mandela and the removal of the ban on the ANC? Will he make the strongest possible representations to the South African Government on how their security forces are completely out of control? Many of its members, perhaps the large majority, are clearly sympathetic to the forces of the ultra-Right and the Nazi terror groups that want to assassinate Mr. Mandela and refuse to recognise the advances that must be made in that country.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is well known as a spokesman for consensus and moderation. He is right that the Government have found it necessary—with, I am sure, the support of the House—to make protests again and again about the behaviour of the South African security forces. The hon. Gentleman was not fair in his remarks about yesterday's events. Mr. Dullah Omar, one of the pricnipal organisers for the Mass Democratic Movement at the large march and demonstration yesterday, did not blame the police for the violence that occurred. He said that he was not satisfied with the security arrangements made by the organisers.

Mr. Julian Amery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the South African Government could not have run the risk of releasing Mr. Mandela—his release is welcome—if President Gorbachev had not withdrawn his support for militant revolutionary forces in central and southern Africa? Will he congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the contribution that she and former President Reagan made by standing up to the imperialist advance in Africa which has been halted? Thanks to its being halted, the chances of fruitful dialogue have increased.

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend is right. The completely transformed relationship between East and West and this country, the United States and the Soviet


Union has contributed—many other things have also contributed—to the change in atmosphere. We are well aware that the advice of the Soviet Union to the ANC, the South-West Africa People's Organisation and other organisations in southern Africa has been to seek dialogue and peace.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Will the Minister reconsider his remarks about the white backlash sweeping away President de Klerk? Should not he be more positive in his approach to the liberal whites and the black majority in South Africa? Were not his earlier remarks very unfortunate?

Mr. Waldegrave: If I spoke with urgency, I meant it. The person who is under most immediate pressure from his constituency is President de Klerk, which is why it is right that we should signal to him that there are benefits for his constituency in going down the road to peace and dialogue.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend encourage, in every international forum that he attends, a full and generous response from the international community to the fundamental changes that have taken place in South Africa, and which need to take place in the future? Does he agree that the hopes and aspirations of the black community in South Africa will be best served by peaceful and steady reform and not by a headlong rush into what may be a very dangerous period?

Mr. Waldegrave: The challenge facing all sides is to transfer the most powerful economy in Africa to its rightful owners—all the people of South Africa—under a proper constitution and without revolutionary chaos in the process. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about that. The steps that have been taken by Mr. de Klerk, which have transformed the situation away from the simple certainties of the past few years and to which we are already seeing a response from Mr. Mandela, deserve our wholehearted support.

Ms. Diane Abbott: Is the Minister aware that it will have been noted that he went out of his way to praise the courage of President de Klerk but said nothing about the courage of the tens of thousands of people who struggled for a generation to bring about yesterday's historical event? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister is widely regarded in this country and abroad as a fifth columnist for apartheid? In her headlong rush to drop sanctions before there has been a word from de Klerk about bringing down the fundamentals of apartheid and about one person, one vote, is not she—like collaborators and fifth columnists throughout time—exposed as redundant, marginal and out of step?

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not agree with the extravagance of the hon. Lady's language. The importance of the events in South Africa should not be underestimated. It is easy to imagine this opportunity being lost because we do not rise to the scale of the events but stick to the old rhetoric—that is the danger which faces us. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is as determined as any of us in the House to see the destruction of apartheid. We need, therefore, to get negotiations under way quickly, and that is what Mr. de Klerk is doing. Hon. Members have paid tribute many times to those who have suffered and who continue to

suffer under apartheid. It is worth thinking of those people in South Africa who are not alive today and who could have contributed to this process of peace. If Mr. Steve Biko were alive today, he would contribute to the process of reconciliation and negotiation.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I welcome the call by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for a measured response to this historic event. That response should be co-ordinated to the maximum extent with our European Community partners, the Commonwealth and, in particular, the United States, which has taken a strong line on sanctions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that sanctions were imposed not for the release of one distinguished and courageous leader from prison but to help bring down a system that was seen as unjust by the international community?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right—the objective of the House and of the world is the destruction of apartheid. It is vital to get negotiations going. In 1986, the Council of Ministers reaffirmed
the urgent need for a genuine national dialogue
in South Africa and proposed various sanctions to bring that about. We believe, as Mr. Mandela clearly believes, that that national dialogue is about to begin.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a day for private Members' motions and that an important statement is to follow this private notice question. I shall call two more Members from each side, and then I am afraid that we must move on.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: The Minister of State referred a number of times to giving "signals" to the present regime in South Africa. Is not the concern throughout the House, including that of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), about the fact that the Government are contributing to confusing signals? As the right hon. Gentleman is a strong advocate of a common foreign policy in the European Community, will he assure us that the British Government will not take a position with the Council of Ministers whereby it seeks to withdraw any sanctions at this stage? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is no parallel between the democratic movement in central and eastern Europe and the changes in South Africa? The South African regime is based on institutional racism. That is qualitatively different from any other lack of democracy worldwide.

Mr. Waldegrave: The lack of democracy in Stalinist Russia was built on institutionalised persecution of the population by a so-called vanguard. The institutional racism of South Africa is an equal or greater evil. Both are evils, and we should welcome the destruction of both.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the European Community. We will discuss these matters with our partners, but we do not believe that it would be right at this moment to send no signal to the South African Government.

Sir Ian Lloyd: I give the warmest possible endorsement to my right hon. Friend's analysis and the sentiments that he expressed. Does he agree that the three greatest dangers now are the extremism of the extreme Right, the extremism of the extreme Left and the


extremism of the extremely stupid? In the light of the analysis of sub-Saharan Africa in the recent report of the World Bank, would not it be extremely stupid to go along the lines suggested by Mr. Mandela and strengthen sanctions when, as my right hon. Friend said, the South African economy is the powerhouse of the whole of sub-Saharan Africa? That is what we must now recognise and support.

Mr. Waldegrave: I find my hon. Friend's analysis rather attractive. The present circumstances have their parallels: the extremists on both sides sometimes end up in the same position. I have never been able to understand why it should be thought that damaging the economy of South Africa further would bring about any progress at such a juncture.
My hon. Friend asked about Mr. Mandela and sanctions. Mr. Mandela has made it perfectly clear that he is a loyal member of the ANC, and the view that he has expressed is ANC policy. No one imagined that he would change ANC policy overnight, and there was no surprise whatever when he took the stance that he took.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister's view—reflected in his answer—is open to a wholly different interpretation: that apartheid is a system of economic exploitation, made possible by the denial of political rights, and that the profits from it accrue to foreign investors, many of whom live in this country? The Government's opposition to sanctions has been motivated more by a wish to preserve the economic interests of their business friends than by any interest in the Africans themselves.

Mr. Waldegrave: Not for the first time, the right hon. Gentleman has the wrong conspiracy theory. If he wants to examine the way in which economic pressures are affecting the position, he should recognise that it is perfectly clear that those who want dialogue and fundamental change in South Africa are now to be found among South Africa's business community. They know that without the use of all the country's resources—including both blacks and whites—the economy will begin to be damaged, and they are a force for progress.

Mr. Michael Knowles: Let me follow up what my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir Ian Lloyd) said about the World Bank report. There is only one democratic country in the whole of Africa, and that is Botswana. We can see Namibia becoming independent next month, and we have high hopes of freedom in South Africa. Will the British Government then press for the abolition of the one-party state in Zimbabwe, Zambia and Tanzania?

Mr. Waldegrave: The World Bank report makes depressing reading. The great prize in southern Africa is a peaceful transition of Africa's most powerful economy to its proper ownership—ownership by all South Africa's people. We believe that Mr. Mandela wants that, and that Mr. de Klerk is entering on the great task. We welcome what Mr. de Klerk has done, and for that reason we support him.

Electricity Privatisation

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about electricity privatisation, the publication of the draft regulatory licences for the industry and the non-fossil fuel obligation.
Good progress continues to be made in preparing the electricity supply industry for vesting on 31 March. The House will be aware that the second commencement order under the Electricity Act 1989 was made at the end of January. Today I am taking another important step towards completing the restructuring of the industry.
I have today made available to the House copies of revised drafts of the licences to be issued to the successors of the Central Electricity Generating Board and area electricity boards, which were initially published on 10 January 1989. The revised drafts take account of the commitments made during the passage of the Electricity Act, and of consultations since the original drafts were published. Other licensees will receive licences based on those drafts, but tailored to their particular requirements. Regulations are being laid today setting out how to apply for a licence and the details of the application procedure. The exemption order identifying those who will not require a licence is also being tabled today.
The principal changes in the draft licences published today are in the conditions dealing with price control, security of supply and the transition to a competitive market. The revised conditions are explained in detail in the explanatory notes that accompany the licences.
The average price for all customers supplied by the public electricity supply companies will be controlled by an RPI-X+Y formula, where Y represents the actual costs to the companies of purchasing the electricity supplied. Customers taking more than 1 MW will benefit from the competition in supply that will be introduced by privatisation. I expect many of them to enjoy price reductions. It may take some time for customers to gain experience of the market and negotiate terms. I have therefore sought an undertaking from the industry that it will use its best endeavours to offer a one-year real price freeze to customers taking more than 1 MW.
Customers taking less than 1MW will benefit from an addition to the price control. Although the industry has yet to propose a final figure, I see no reason why the average price to these customers should rise by much more than the current rate of inflation this year. The price control should prevent any further real increases before the end of March 1993. Indeed, the public electricity supply companies could well be able to offer some real price reductions to these customers in this period.
I believe that the combination of these controls will be more effective than the yardstick price control proposed in the original draft licences. Altogether I do not expect the average price for all customers to rise in real terms this year.
All these expectations on prices allow for the effect of the fossil fuel levy, which I intend to set for 1990–91 at a rate of 10·6 per cent. on the value of final sales. I expect the rate of levy to decline significantly over the next eight years. I shall shortly be laying regulations under which the levy will be established and collected.
I also intend to lay at the same time an order setting the initial non-fossil fuel obligation for the public electricity supply companies. The intention of the obligation is not only to ensure that existing and committed nuclear plant in England and Wales is contracted for; it is also to encourage the development of commercial renewable energy sources. Around 300 projects have been put forward to the area boards in response to that policy. The Government have been extremely encouraged by this response and wish to ensure a full contribution from renewables to the NFFO. Given the size of the response, it has not been possible to assess all those projects fully by the time the initial order needs to be made.
Accordingly, the initial order will cover only nuclear capacity. I intend to allow a further two months for the area boards to complete their negotiations with renewable operators and I shall then lay a second order relating specifically to renewables. That will ensure that renewables projects can be assessed fairly and a proper contribution obtained.
The initial order will, therefore, amount to some 8,000 MW or so in total for the period 1990–91 to 1997–98. As I told the House on 9 November, the Government will review the prospects for nuclear power in 1994. Decisions about the level of the obligation beyond 1998 will be taken then.
Returning to the licences, the conditions on security of supply have been amended to ensure that all suppliers meet the current standards of security, except where their customers choose otherwise. Suppliers may meet that condition by becoming members of the new electricity trading pool that is being established since the price of electricity in the pool will include a capacity charge that reflects the value of secure supplies to customers. Suppliers will have economic incentives to ensure that sufficient generating plant is available. I believe that that approach will provide secure supplies more effectively than central planning by a monopoly supplier.
As for competition in supply, the licences now incorporate provisions to implement the decisions announced on 29 September 1989. Those provide for an orderly and stable transition to a fully competitive market by allowing other suppliers to compete with the area supply companies for customers taking more than 1 MW at the outset, for customers taking more than 100 kW after four years, and for all customers after eight years.
The licences, therefore, contain corresponding transitional constraints on the premises that such competitors can supply. If they apply for licences to supply customers falling within those restrictions, I will look to the Director General of Electricity Supply to advise me on whether such licences should be issued.
Although I shall be disposed to act in accordance with the restrictions announced on 29 September, I accept that I will need to exercise discretion to deal with particular circumstances that already exist or may arise. Such cases will be considered on their merits. The licences also contain transitional limits on the extent to which National Power and PowerGen can engage in direct sales to enable competition in supply and new supply arrangements to develop.
The arrangements that I have set out today mark the successful achievement of another stage in this privatisation. When the new companies are vested on 31 March, this country will have the most competitive electricity supply industry in the world. I know that those in the

industry are keen to be privatised to respond to the new challenges and to rid themselves of the dead hand of the public sector. I am sure also that the public will welcome the benefits of competition and will seize the opportunities to invest in the new companies.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I realise that my first point is not a matter for him, but will he confirm for the benefit of my Scottish colleagues that a statement on what is to happen to the electricity industry in Scotland will be made in the House?
The Secretary of State told us about his amazing RPI-X+Y formula, but there must be a more important definition of Y. Everyone in the country will want to know why it is necessary for there to be any electricity price increases. Will he confirm that price increases are quite unnecessary and are needed only to fatten up the industry for privatisation? Is it not the case that, over the past three years, coal prices have gone down by 6 per cent., electricity prices have gone up by 12 per cent., the generating board's profits have gone up by 90 per cent., and the new coal contract envisages further reductions in the price of coal? So why is it necessary to have any price increases for consumers?
The Secretary of State is an accountant and he is usually fairly precise, but his statement was rather vague about price increases to be faced by major industrial consumers in particular, such as the special steels industry, the chemicals industry and paper and board mills. Will he guarantee that he will not handicap those companies by enormous price increases in the run-up to 1992? What will be the increases for domestic consumers in future years?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that a nuclear levy of 10·6 per cent. means that nuclear power costs must now be at least 40 per cent. more than the cost of electricity produced at conventional stations? If that is the case, why does he insist that the most expensive stations on the system provide the base load while the cheapest power stations on the system are not run all the time? Surely that is the reverse of common sense.
I hope that the Secretary of State will forgive my colleagues and me if we do not comment on the licences, because we have had the details only since 3 o'clock and we have not had an opportunity to consider them in detail. However, do the licences place an obligation to supply upon the two main generating companies? If not, how can there be any guarantee of security of supply? Will the licences promote energy conservation by the distribution companies? Will they require the generating companies to install equipment to clean up flue gases, or is there truth in the rumour that the right hon. Gentleman is allowing the generating companies to wriggle out of their obligation to clean up flue gases? In other words, is it true that he is willing to accept them continuing in their present dirty ways, as they have for the past two decades, to make the industry more attractive to private purchasers?
We welcome the news that there are many applications for renewables, but will the Secretary of State reconsider the position and allow combined heat and power to be included in that category, and thus give it the boost that it needs?
Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that everything in his statement amounts to his putting privatisation first, and that the interests of industrial consumers, the balance of payments, the environment and


domestic consumers are all being put second to the requirement that has been placed on him by the Prime Minister, which is get the industry sold off as quickly as possible?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asked me 10 questions. He is right that his first question—about Scotland—is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I shall certainly put it to him.
The hon. Member then talked about price increases and about fattening up the industry for privatisation, as he put it. He must make up his mind fairly soon about whether we are fattening up the industry for privatisation or selling it for a song. The fact is that we are doing neither. We intend to privatise the industry at a proper and fair price. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said about price increases, he would have heard me say that I did not expect that on average there would be any price increases in real terms and that prices would stay the same in real terms. I shall not quote the Labour party's record on electricity prices as there are plenty of other questions to answer.
The hon. Gentleman asked me not to be vague about large users of electricity. I certainly shall not be vague and I have said that I expect the industry to offer terms to the large users and to any user over 1M W of consumption and to keep the price increases to the RPI for the current year. Thereafter, they will be in a position to negotiate freely for prices within the market and I know that a number of them are already setting about that task.
The hon. Gentleman's fourth question related to domestic prices. I have said that customers below 1 MW will have the benefits of the overall price control and of regulation. I see no reason why their prices should increase by much more than the rate of inflation this year, although the area boards have not yet made their proposals. The price control formula will ensure that price rises are limited so that there will be no real increase in prices for the next two years. As I have said, they are maximum figures, and the area boards could well do better for many of their customers.
With regard to the fossil fuel levy that I announced, the hon. Gentleman is misleading the House if he states that it is an additional impost on electricity consumers. Consumers pay for the cost of nuclear power in their bills at the moment. The levy simply brings the matter out in the open, as set out in the Electricity Act 1989, and there will be no increase in the price of nuclear power as a result of the change. The levy will still be there, but, at 10·6 per cent., it is less than a lot of people thought, and it will decrease over the next eight years.
On the question of the obligation to supply, or the security of supply, I believe that the present arrangements under the Electricity Act are better than the previous bureaucratic arrangements of the Central Electricity Generating Board. Under the Electricity Act, the area boards are required to offer terms to any customers in their area and that offer will be backed up by the licensing conditions and by stiff financial penalties. Therefore, they will have a clear legal obligation to contract for sufficient supplies to meet the requirements in their areas.
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the important matter of energy conservation. He should remember that over the past 10 years there has been a substantial

improvement in energy efficiency in Britain. While there has been a 20 per cent. increase in gross domestic product, we have used the same levels of energy. We expect that to continue. It is very much in the consumer's interest to pursue improvements in energy efficiency. Several proposals in my statement will improve energy efficiency further. First—

Mr. Jeff Rooker: How much longer?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend asked me 10 questions and I have not finished answering them. If he does not like it, he should speak to his hon. Friend about it.
The overwhelmingly important factor in efficiency of energy consumption is to create competition in generation. The area boards will have a responsibility to encourage energy efficiency and will draw up codes of practice.
The Government stand by their commitment to ensure that the European convention on flue gases, to which we are signatories, is met. Proposals will be made to do that in the most effective and efficient way possible. Negotiations on the most effective way will include desulphurisation retrofitting of electricity stations. In some stations, it will not be necesary because of the planned changeover to gas. Negotiations with the industry are being held now. I confirm that the Government are fully committed to the European directive. The industry will be fully committed to any environmental matters that arise out of the Environmental Protection Bill currently going through the House.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras asked me about renewables and combined heat and power procedures. We did not include CHP power stations in the renewables. We believe that CHP proposals can provide some of the most efficient forms of electricity generation. There will be a great incentive for builders of electricity generating stations to use those principles wherever appropriate. In the initial period, most CHP proposals will come within the proposals for own-generation, which will be free of the fossil fuel levy. Builders of power stations will benefit from that.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong about privatisation. The purpose of privatisation is to provide customers with a better deal by encouraging competition in electricity generation. It can be seen from the date of my statement that that has already begun. At the end of the transitional period all consumers will benefit.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that I always endeavour to look after the interests of Back Benchers and give them at least as long as Front-Bench Members. However, I ask hon. Members to put their questions succinctly so that we can get on with the business set down. This is a private Members' day.

Mr. John Hannam: Does my right hon. Friend recall that it was not long ago that the Labour party forecast price increases after privatisation in excess of 20 per cent.? Now Labour Members grumble that prices will increase at the level of inflation, something which the Labour Government did not achieve. Will he accept the thanks of consumers for the steps that he has taken to stabilise electricity prices after privatisation? Will he


confirm that as competition brings itself to bear in the electricity supply industry there will be a downward presure on prices in the longer term?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the last five years of the Labour Government, the price of electricity increased by 6 per cent. in real terms for industrial customers and 5 per cent. for domestic consumers. A stabilisation in real terms is a substantial improvement on the record of the Labour party. As competition is seen to work, there will be a downward pressure on all prices.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the Secretary of State deny that for the past 12 months and for some time ahead every quarterly domestic electricity bill will be at least £10 higher as a result of the preparation for privatisation? Will he further deny that the sale price for the industry compared with its asset value will be so low as to make all other privatisations look responsible?

Mr. Wakeham: No, I do not accept that. On average, prices will not increase over the whole range. The electricity industry will be privatised at what will be seen to be a fair and proper price.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: Although I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, which shows that privatisation is well on target to meet the proposed timetable, which is excellent news for domestic electricity customers, does he agree that heavy industrial users have short memories? In the past five years of this Government industrial electricity prices have decreased by 10 per cent., whereas in the last five years of the Labour Government they increased by 6 per cent.

Mr. Wakeham: I have provided a cap for large industrial users in the first year. Afterwards they will be able to negotiate prices in a competitive market. Many expect to benefit from price reductions.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: Does the Secretary of State agree that his statement today is so important and significant for consumers and the electricity industry that it should be the subject not merely of a statement but of scrutiny and debate in the House? In his carefully worded statement he said that he would not expect prices to rise above the rate of inflation. Many consumers will see that as faith, hope and charity because he is not in a position to guarantee that that will happen. Many knowledgeable people in the industry believe that prices will increase substantially. Does the Secretary of State agree that many consumers see as most important, not the question of competition, but the security of supply? We do not want the lights to go out.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman can speculate about prices. I have given the House the information as best I can and the figures I gave are accurate. It is interesting to remember how wide of the mark previous speculation has been, and I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wide of the mark, too.
I recognise the importance of the security of supply. As I pointed out, the arrangements that we are making now are better than existing arrangements whereby the security of supply or the obligation to supply is a planning decision for the CEGB. Under the new arrangements the area boards must offer terms to the customers in their area. Those terms and the generation for which they have

contracted is backed up by licences. It will be a licence condition that the suppliers contract for adequate supplies and there will be severe financial penalties if they get it wrong. That will provide the security of supply that we all want and expect to see at a better, more economic cost than previously.

Sir Trevor Skeet: While I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his clear statement, may I refer to the non-fossil fuel obligation? It is important to bear in mind the size of the nuclear industry arid not to wait until the review in 1994 when it may be too late. Nuclear power stations must be built and we must have an ongoing research and development programme. Unless that is done, the country could be in great difficulty with its electricity supply.

Mr. Wakeham: I appreciate my hon. Friend's long-term concern and interest in the nuclear industry. We have organised the industry with Nuclear Electric and a good level of management to ensure that our substantial nuclear capacity is used to best advantage in the interim period. Meantime, it is right to give a degree of certainty to what will happen in the short term. That is why I said that we shall review the prospects for nuclear power in 1994. but remain committed to a long-term role for competitive nuclear power. Between now and 1994 we shall be giving a considerable amount of thought, and, if necessary, devoting a considerable amount of research, to establishing the best way forward after that.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: As I am sure the Minister accepts, we welcome the identification of the role of renewables, which he has emphasised. Can he tell us more about how renewables projects will be assessed fairly and properly, as he said they would be? He referred to the dead hand of the public sector, but he has had to use that so-called dead hand to maintain the life of the nuclear industry. How does he propose to deal with the older Magnox stations in respect of which decisions may have to be made before 1994? Can he say precisely how he intends to undertake the review in 1994?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not know that I can say anything further in reply to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. However, the first two points that he makes are important. As I have said, about 300 renewables projects have been put forward for consideration. These extend right across the range of all the sorts of renewables that the hon. Gentleman and others will be aware of. They amount, in total, to a capacity of between 1GW and 2GW—a substantial improvement on what we have at the moment. It would be idle to pretend that they are all likely to be developed sufficiently to be included in the obligation. We want to see whether these projects, with the financial assistance of the obligation over the period, appear to have a viable future. If so, we shall give them every encouragement.
With regard to the Magnox stations, the position is quite simple. Subject to the overriding safety considerations of the nuclear inspectorate, the life of some Magnox stations may be extended somewhat. That is what we shall seek to do. It may be that in some cases additional expenditure will be necessary. The first consideration is safety, but if the life of a station can be extended we believe that that would be a good idea.

Mr. Peter Rost: Now that my right hon. Friend, for very sensible reasons, has arranged a transition period, during which it will be necessary to restrict free competition, can he give us an assurance that he is satisfied that, with regard to investment intentions, new independent producers will have the same incentive during that period? If not, he will not get the benefit of diversity of supply and genuine competition at the end of the transition period.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are very anxious indeed that a sufficiently large number of independent projects should come forward. We know of about 20 that are being considered at the moment. We believe that the publication of the licences, which will give potential investors in independent generation more detail about how to proceed, will bring forward further projects. It is important that potential investors should know that they will be very welcome to become suppliers. So long as they meet the technical requirements, there is no reason why they should not be part of a highly competitive and expanding generating business.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Why does not the Secretary of State recognise that, in the private sector, energy conservation and the development of renewable sources of energy will always come second to the profit motive? Would not it be in our best interests, in terms of energy and environmentally, for this important industry to remain in the public sector?

Mr. Wakeham: I should expect the hon. Gentleman to say something like that, but it does not fit very well with the facts. We have a non-fossil fuel obligation. In particular, we are obliged to encourage renewable sources to play their part during the initial period—while they are being established. I think that that is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. We have set up the machinery, and it appears to be working even better than we thought it would. At some stage the hon. Gentleman will regret what he has just said.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: As the propaganda war about the privatisation of electricity gathers momentum, does my right hon. Friend agree not only that industrial users have benefited greatly from our management of electricity supply, but that domestic consumers, householders, can be grateful? Is it not the case that, over the past five years, they have benefited from an 8 per cent. decrease, in real terms, in their electricity bills, whereas during the last five years of the Labour Government they suffered an increase, in real terms, of 9 per cent.? Whom should the householder trust with the management of electricity—the present Government, or the Opposition, who, when in office, raised prices?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. The privatised electricity supply industry will greatly benefit the consumer.

Dr. Kim Howells: Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the price increase, which he described as not being a real one, includes the nuclear or fossil-fuel levy, call it what one will? Can he assure the House that the nuclear levy will not increase when the first costs of decommissioning start to come through?

Mr. Wakeham: The indications of the prices that I gave include the fossil fuel levy, which must be paid. The levy will put Nuclear Electric in a cash positive position for the first eight years of its operation and, during that time, fossil fuel will be on a declining path. The company will be able to meet all its obligations during that time, including decommissioning costs.

Mr. Michael Stern: Does my right hon. Friend recall that during the passage of the Electricity Bill the non-fossil fuel obligation was universally branded by the Opposition as a device for the perpetuation of nuclear power? Does he agree that the range of options for renewables that have now been introduced not represent only a direct contradiction of that belief, but an indication of the extent to which the process of increasing the supply of renewables has been helped by the privatisation process?

Mr. Wakeham: The process of privatisation appears to be working extremely well with regard to renewables and will be beneficial to the environment. In about two months' time I intend to lay the order about renewables, but I should make it clear that it will relate to the initial tranche of renewables. We have reserved an additional 600 MW for further renewable projects after that time. If that allocation does not appear to be enough in the light of experience, we shall give serious consideration to increasing it still further.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Surely the truth of the matter is that when the Government decided to set forth on their privatisation of electricity after the general election the first thing they needed to do was to allow the industry to increase prices massively to fatten up the enterprise. The next thing the Government did was to allow the industry another 8 per cent. in accordance with the RPI and then to announce that they would allow the nuclear section of the industry to be subsidised to the tune of about £10 billion with the decommissioning of the Magnox nuclear reactors. Now the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the next price increase will be based on two variables—minus X plus Y. He has told us what Y is, but he has not told us what X is. My guess is that X represents the electoral factor in the run-up to the next general election.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, goes wide of the point. I know that the hon. Gentleman watches such things carefully and I advise him to watch some of the statements made by his hon. Friends the Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) as to exactly what they would do to the coal industry should they ever have the opportunity. The hon. Gentleman should consider those statements carefully as that would be a more productive use of his time. Y equals input costs, X represents cost savings through efficiency. It is a minus figure.

Sir Peter Hordern: It is welcome to hear that price increases to the domestic consumer will be contained, at least in the next two years, within the rate of inflation. From the taxpayers' point of view, can my right hon. Friend tell us whether substantial sums will be required to write off assets before privatisation occurs, as they were for the water industry? If not, what will be the position?

Mr. Wakeham: There may be some slight increase in domestic prices this year, but for the next two years after that they will be contained in real terms. For the figures for the privatisation of the company, my hon. Friend will have to wait until we produce the prospectus. We are in the process of producing balance sheets for the companies before privatisation. We shall ensure that the assets are sold at a proper and realistic figure.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that I have an obligation to protect private Members' business. I shall call three more Members from each side and then, I regret, we shall have to move on.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I echo the earlier plea for a separate Scottish statement. This is an extremely important matter, and I see that there is a Scottish Office Minister on the Treasury Bench. Will the Secretary of State obtain confirmation from the Scottish Office that such a statement is intended and thus avoid the suggestion that one hand does not know, or is not in tandem with, what the other is doing? Is not the truth of this afternoon's statement that all the tough political decisions are being postponed beyond the latest date of the next election? Why, in the transitional period, has the Secretary of State not found room for incentives for energy efficiency? Will he explain what he meant by this statement, which occurred among a lot of ministerial gobbledegook:
The licences, therefore, contain corresponding transitional constraints on the premises which such competitors can supply.
May we have that in English?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall pass on to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the request for a statement on Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a matter for me.
With regard to the juicy extract that the hon. Gentleman gave from my statement, I meant that, because there is an eight-year transitional period for the introduction of competition, for the first part of that period, customers with more than 1 MW of consumption will be free of all restraint. At the end of four years, the limit will be reduced to 10 kW. Thereafter, there will be no constraint. During that period, there must be a regulation to stop anybody supplying electricity to those areas that are the exclusive purview of the area boards. The regulations cover that.

Mr. Kevin Barron: A free market.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman says, "A free market". He should consider how this will benefit the coal industry during that period.

Mr. Michael Jack: In response to the remarks of those Opposition Members who wear their environmental credentials on their sleeve, will my right hon. Friend confirm that 34 per cent. of the principal greenhouse gas—carbon dioxide—comes from coal-fired power stations? Will he confirm that there is nothing in his statement to prevent the nuclear workers in my constituency from making their contribution to addressing this environmental problem?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. A substantial amount of the greenhouse gases that are produced from

power generation in this country come from fossil-burning power stations. Nuclear power stations have a substantial advantage over that. Nuclear power has one big disadvantage: it is required to pay the cost of disposal of its waste. The disposal of the wastes of the fossil fuel generators is part of the problem that we have to tackle in the near future.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I ask the Secretary of State a slightly hypothetical question: is it not fair to say that, if nuclear power were cheaper. the coal mining industry, and the mining industry generally, would be asking for a nuclear levy to help them in their difficulties?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not normally answer hypothetical questions, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We are dealing with the real world in which nuclear power is more expensive than fossil-generated power. It is possible to get the price down to a competitive rate, and I shall do everything that I can to deal with the problems.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: In seeking to achieve the lowest possible prices, especially for industrial consumers facing foreign competition, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is no cross-subsidy between industrial and domestic consumers so that all consumers, large and small, can benefit from the welcome advantages of competition?

Mr. Wakeham: That is an important part of what we are seeking to achieve in the initial years, and further ahead. Cross-subsidisation would negate the purposes of the Act.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the formula RPI-X+Y, what are the determinants of X? Those who use mathematical formulae had better be very precise.

Mr. Wakeham: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a look at the licences; they are precisely all the costs incurred by the area boards other than the costs of electricity, which they have to buy from the generators.

Mr. Barry Field: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the non-fossil fuel obligation and the eventual right of large industrial producers of electricity—such as the Fawley oil refinery—to sell their excess capacity will make an outstanding contribution to the reduction of global warming and CO2?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Minister give an accurate statement of what is to happen to the 12,000MW flue-gas desulphurisation programme? The Government were committed to that programme and to completing it by 1993, but it seems that in their enthusiasm to privatise the electricity industry that commitment has vanished. Does not that show that when there is a choice between helping the rich, which is what privatisation is, and cleaning up the environment, the environment always comes a very poor second under this Government?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is cleverer than he sometimes pretends. He knows perfectly well that there is an EEC directive which requires us to reduce sulphur levels, and that the Government are committed to doing that. They are not, however, committed to doing it in a non-efficient way. We are looking at the best way of


achieving it. Achieve it we will and we shall be seen to achieve it, but we shall not do it in a way that is not the most sensible—even the hon. Gentleman would not advocate that.

Mr. Barron: Is not the non-efficient way, as suggested in the right hon. Gentleman's statement, an expansion of the generation of electricity by nuclear means? As for the misnamed fossil fuel levy announced today, should not the right hon. Gentleman admit that nuclear generation is more than 40 per cent. dearer than fossil fuel generation?
Speaking of the quaintly named interim period, has not the right hon. Gentleman told everybody today that there will be little or no competition in electricity generation for the foreseeable future? Why has he not protected consumers, both industrial and domestic? He must be well aware that British Coal has reduced its prices to the electricity generators in the past three years by £850 million. That could have led to a cut of 4 per cent. in prices over the past three years, but instead they have increased by 15 per cent. in order to fatten the industry for privatisation.
How can the Minister tell industrial and domestic consumers that they must accept an increase of at least the rate of inflation—8 per cent.—when he knows full well that the major expense that the generators will face in the next three years lies with British Coal, which has provided them with a contract that will save them £450 million in that period? Why has he not protected consumers, instead of letting his friends in the City and everyone else get ready to run away with the profits at the consumers' expense?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nuclear position, on which we have stated our policy. We shall review the prospects for nuclear power in 1994. In the meantime, we shall complete Sizewell B and make the most effective and efficient use of existing nuclear capacity. That seems a sensible policy.
As for the protection of the consumer, and of prices, a great chunk of my statement provided an indication of price levels which I believe are a good protection for consumers for the next few years—very much more so than was possible under the last Labour Government.
I know that the hon. Gentleman takes the coal industry very seriously. So do I. That is why we brought the Coal Industry Bill before Parliament—it represents a substantial improvement in British Coal's finances—and why it is necessary to continue. I would be the first to pay tribute to the efforts of the coal industry to improve productivity in recent years, but the hon. Gentleman's proposition that the coal industry's improvements in efficiency could all be passed on to the consumer was not sensible, given that they were largely paid for by the taxpayer in recent years. The great problem facing the coal industry is that it should not rest on its laurels but should continue the improvement, so that at the end of the three-year contract I believe it possible that coal will still be the prime choice of fuel for the British generation industry. The hon. Gentleman should be worried lest competition from oil, gas and imported coal takes a great share of the market and produces more unemployment in the coal industry. None of us wants that.

T. W. Kempton Limited

Mr. Greville Janner: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the closure on Friday of the long-established Leicester knitwear company T. W. Kempton Ltd, which has its headquarters and major plant at Burleys way in my constituency".
The matter is specific because it concerns Kempton, a fine, well-managed and long-established company and one of the largest privately owned knitwear companies in the United Kingdom.
It used to employ 1,200 people, 840 of whom worked in Leicester. The company was put into the hands of receivers on 6 November, and immediately jobs were lost. On Friday last there was an announcement of closure with the immediate loss of a further 300 jobs. That is important in itself, but especially because it reflects a national advancing catastrophe.
Leicester's main industry is knitwear, which last year still employed about 33,000 people in the county, some 22,000 of whom worked in the city of Leicester. Between June 1988 and November 1989 there were 7,500 job losses in the industry, of which 4,000 were in Leicestershire. The knitwear and hosiery industries are heading for catastrophe. The Government are standing with their hands folded, and there should be an urgent debate on the matter.
Among other companies affected by redundancies are renowned names such as Corah, Ingram, Chilprufe, Strettons, Towles, Lesley Dee and Leofabs. Last week it was announced that the Paisley Hyer group, which employs 1,000 people in Leicestershire, had gone into receivership in conditions similar to those in which Kempton did. In Nottingham, the Response group, employing 3,500 people, has gone into the hands of receivers.
The Government have taken no action while this great industry, symbolised by Kempton, struggles to survive. With employers and unions united in their pleas for help, the Government have done no more than produce a research programme which is due to take effect and to become useful in about five years. How many people will still be employed in the industry by then? How many firms like Kempton will collapse before the Government act?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the loss of 300 jobs resulting from the closure of T. W. Kempton Limited of Leicester".
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20, I have to announce my decision without giving my reasons to the House. I have listened with care and concern to what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. As he knows, my only decision is to decide whether the application should have precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that, in this case, I do not feel that the


matter that the hon. and learned Member has raised meets the requirements of the Standing Order, and I cannot accept his application to the House.

Inshore Fishing Fleet

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threat to the nation's inshore fishing fleet arising from the recent bad weather conditions.
The appalling weather of recent weeks is causing grave damage to the livelihood of the nation's fishermen, in particular to the inshore fleet. The matter needs urgent debate in Parliament. The fishing press, fully supported by information from ports throughout the United Kingdom, is reporting extensive damage to boat-owning interests and the laying-off of a large number of people working in the industry. They call for immediate emergency aid to see them through a difficult period. They are calling for, and need, the kind of aid which has readily been made available to the farming community in the past.
The matter is important, as the position in the north-west of England is causing grave concern. In my constituency the problem is acute. The Maryport fleet of 25 boats, employing between 60 and 80 people, has been tied up for more than eight weeks.
A letter from local fisherman Harold Musgrave, explaining the plight of fishermen, says:
The situation is now so desperate that we must appeal through you for emergency aid from the Government. If it is not forthcoming, the very important role that we play in providing jobs and support to the economy of our town and West Cumbria as a whole could go to the wall.
He goes on:
Over the past 10 years, UK fishermen have been ignored. The Government's failure to introduce a comprehensive decommissioning scheme has made matters worse and the Government is now under attack within the EEC where money is available … whether at sea or not, fishermen must pay overheads, whatever they be, high interest bank loans, insurance or the hire of equipment.
He says that bills have to be paid:

We are asking for your full support and that of all fair-minded MPs to gain for us emergency aid now. The position is desperate.
He emphasizes the word "now", and I know that the time of the House is precious, but could you spare us time for a debate please, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threat to the nation's inshore fishing fleet arising from the recent bad weather conditions.
I have listened with concern and I do not underestimate the seriousness of the situation that the hon. Member has outlined, but, as he knows, I have to base my decision on whether the application should have precedence over today's business or business tomorrow. I regret that I have to give him the same answer as I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). I cannot submit his application to the House, but hope that the hon. Member will find other methods of bringing the matter before the House.

BILL PRESENTED

PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1958 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Mr. Alfred Morris, supported by Mr. Jack Ashley, Sir Richard Body, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Neil Hamilton, Mr. Denis Healey, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Rev. Martin Smyth, Sir David Steel and Mr. Dafydd Wigley, presented a Bill to amend the Public Records Act 1958 to permit the making of a permanent loan or a gift of a public record: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 March and to be printed. [Bill 70.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That European Community Documents Nos. 9127/89, 10318/87 and 4406/88 on generalised system of preferences (Poland, Hungary and Korea) be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Legal Services

Mr. Keith Vaz: I beg to move,
That this House is shocked at the continued public feuding between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service which has developed into a crisis of confidence in two essential parts of the criminal justice system; and notes that the public legal services are in a serious state of collapse, in particular in respect of the legal aid system, the duty solicitors' scheme, the funding crisis of law centres and the failure of the Government to make progress on the issue of family courts.
This is the first time in many years that the House has discussed the crucial issue of legal services. I am grateful to the Attorney-General for his presence in the House today, and I look forward to hearing his important contribution.
This debate is not just about lawyers talking about lawyers. At some time in his life, every citizen comes into contact with the legal services. I declare an interest as a former solicitor, who was employed at the north Leicester advice centre. I no longer practise.
In the time available I want to cover several crucial areas where I assert that the legal system is in crisis, and where I believe that early and urgent Government action is required. I shall begin with the Crown prosecution service.
As the House knows, the Select Committee on Home Affairs is conducting an inquiry into the operation of the Crown prosecution service. Members of the Committee, apart from myself, are at present on a site visit to Manchester. Tomorrow I shall join them in north Wales. Had they been here, I am certain that they would have wished to contribute to the debate.
On 23 January 1989, I asked the Attorney-General whether he agreed that the operation of the Crown prosecution service was approaching a crisis. He did not agree, and he stated in his reply to my request for an inquiry that he felt that it was an unnecessary disruption for an inquiry to take place.
Judging by the evidence given to the Select Committee by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Allan Green, and by representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation, there is little doubt in my mind that a serious crisis is besetting the Crown prosecution service. The public feuding between two essential elements of the criminal justice system has been astonishing. I felt that it was important to bring the matter before the House at an early stage, to seek the Attorney-General's views. The only people who could have an interest in the continuation of this quarrel are the criminals themselves, who have watched the proceedings, and watched the police and the DPP acting as sworn enemies rather than partners, as we have watched them.
I pay tribute to the staff of the Crown prosecution service for the work that they do under enormous pressure. I am a friend of the service, and I strongly believe in the need for an independent prosecution service. I pay tribute especially to the CPS in Leicestershire, which I have found to be efficient, fair and independent. All people agree that, from birth, the CPS has suffered from gross under-resourcing and understaffing. There are numerous complaints about the way in which it was established.
I ask the Attorney-General—I gave him notice of this and of several other questions—whether, with hindsight, he accepts the criticism that the service was established too hastily by the Government and without sufficient

planning. Does he agree with the statement by Mr. Green to the Select Committee, that "I think the service was brought in too hurriedly."?
The inability of the Crown prosecution service to keep and recruit lawyers is legendary. Since its creation it has been understaffed by 23 per cent., or by 430 posts. In a recent parliamentary reply, the Attorney-General told me that, in the three years since its creation, 334 lawyers have left—304 resigned, seven retired, four were dismissed, 16 were transferred and three died. A total of £619,580 has been spent, until 14 November last year, on an advertising campaign to recruit more staff.

Mr. David Martin: Can the hon. Gentleman give the exact figure of how many people work for the Crown prosecution service, so that we may know by what percentage it is understaffed?

Mr. Vaz: The service is about 23 per cent. understaffed at the moment, and the total number of posts is about 1,200, but I am sure that when the Attorney-General replies he will give us the correct, up-to-date figures. Those are the rough figures, as I see them.
Does the Attorney-General accept the proposals of the Public Accounts Committee, which would give the Director of Public Prosecutions more freedom to pay competitive rates for CPS lawyers?
Over the past three years more than £40 million has been spent out of the CPS budget on private agency lawyers. Does the Attorney-General know that an agency lawyer working full time for the CPS earns more than a CPS lawyer doing the same work? This afternoon when I spoke to the First Division Association I learnt that about £250 is the cost of an agency lawyer for a day's work in the CPS. That would give that person an income of £150,000 per year. I understand that that is more than the amount paid to any chief Crown prosecutor, except the Director of Public Prosecutions.
How can we justify the expenditure of such an enormous amount from the public sector on private solicitors? Does the Attorney-General accept that the Government are not getting value for money, given the criticisms that have been made about the calibre of the agency lawyers? What steps does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to improve that?
Those are important issues, but by far the most important current issue concerning the CPS arises from the evidence to the Select Committee. I found Mr. Allan Green, the Director of Public Prosecutions, a professional, honest and candid witness. In answer to a question from me he made an astonishing statement. He said:
The introduction of the service was a bitter pill for some police officers to swallow. Some are not co-operating fully and might indeed be obstructing it in certain respects. These are areas in which we do need, if we are to do our job properly, very much greater effort, co-operation and willingness on the part of the police.
I pressed him about who the officers were and their ranks, and asked how senior the officers obstructing the work of the CPS were. Mr. Green replied:
It is a very difficult question to answer. I would say that at all ranks in the police force, from top to bottom, there will be certain people who are very much less willing to co-operate than others.
His words "from top to bottom" included reference to chief constables and junior officers.
Does the Attorney-General stand by the statement of the Director of Public Prosecutions? Does he agree that


there are officers at all ranks who are refusing to co-operate, hindering, or wilfully obstructing the workings of the CPS? How many officers are involved in that action? When did the Law Officers first become aware of that? I know from a conversation that I had with the Solicitor-General on Report of the Children Bill that he was aware of it in October last year. What steps has the Attorney-General taken to refer the matter to his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary? What disciplinary action, if any, has been taken against officers who have been found to be involved in that obstruction?
I now refer to the evidence of the police. The Police Federation maintains that there is a crisis of confidence in the CPS. Its evidence stabs the CPS not only in the back but in the front. The federation has become extraordinarily bitter. It asserts that the reputation of the criminal justice system has suffered as a result of the activities of the CPS. The federation is against almost everything that the CPS has done in the past few years. It challenges the calibre of agency staff, is critical of the plea bargaining system that the CPS has adopted, and attacks CPS lawyers for failing to make applications for compensation after cases. The federation also attacks the CPS for failing to keep witnesses informed and says that the actions of the CPS have damaged the morale of police officers. It challenges the way in which the CPS has taken prosecutions and decisions about the discontinuance of prosecutions.
Does the Attorney-General accept any of the police criticisms that are set out in written evidence? Does he agree with the police that the CPS is in crisis? Has he received any representations from the Home Secretary about the matter? Does he accept the view put forward by the Association of Chief Police Officers that the police should be allowed their own solicitors in order to second-guess the decisions of the CPS? Crucially, does he accept the police statement in paragraph 1 of their evidence, that the CPS has damaged the reputation of the criminal justice system? Does he agree with the Director of Public Prosecutions or with the Police Federation?
In respect of the evidence given last week by Mr. David Owen, the chief constable of north Wales, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman support the view that the evidence given on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers represents Mr. Owen's own views and that he is pursuing a vendetta against the CPS, or does he accept that Mr. Owen's evidence represents the collective views of the association?

Mr. Alex Carlile: On occasions I have had the advantage of being instructed by the north Wales CPS, under the leadership of its chief Crown prosecutor, Mr. Clarke, and I found that its Crown court preparation is of the highest possible standard.

Mr. Vaz: I certainly accept that. As I said, I shall join the other members of the Select Committee in north Wales tomorrow. I raised the issue of Mr. Owen because it has been raised with me in the past and was raised in the Committee. It is extremely important for the House to know whether the Attorney-General accepts Mr. Owen's views.
I urge the Attorney-General to act to stop this disgraceful public row, which must be having a profound effect on the public perception of two of three partners in

the criminal justice system. I ask him to tell the House the steps that he will take, either on his own or with the Home Secretary, to end the feud.
The public evidence submitted by 23 organisations is a damning indictment of the Crown prosecution service. Everyone who gave evidence, including representatives of the Home Office, was critical to some degree. One of those giving evidence said that the CPS was in a shambles. Perhaps the problem lies in the lack of co-operation between the police and the Crown prosecution service. Those are serious matters that have attracted a great deal of public comment, and I hope that the Attorney-General will give us the assurances that I seek.
There is a view that, because of the enormous damage to its reputation, the Crown prosecution service should be scrapped, refurbished and re-established with a new name, and that it should be given the support that it has never received. I should like to know whether the Attorney-General shares that view.

Mr. Tim Devlin: I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman because I am anxious to learn whether he is criticising the police or the CPS. His solution to the problem is to change the name and re-establish the service. Does he accept the concept of an independent prosecuting authority—which is what the CPS is? If he accepts that, why will changing the name make the army fight any better?

Mr. Vaz: As is so often the case, the hon. Gentleman missed the beginning of my speech. I am sure that he was delayed elsewhere on parliamentary business. He will therefore not have heard me say that I am a great supporter of an independent prosecution service. I offered the example of the American system and said that we need to get away from the damaging criticism of the CPS. A change of name and a new approach may do much to reassure the public and the elements of the criminal justice system that we wish to begin again.
There is a crisis in the provision of legal aid. I welcome the announcement that the Lord Chancellor made in November of a review of the legal aid system. However, I question why it will take so long for that review to reach a conclusion.
In the past 10 years, 15 million people have lost the right to qualify for legal aid. Many proposals in many reports published over the past decade would, if implemented, directly benefit citizens. They include the same flexible upper limit for civil legal aid as for criminal legal aid so that people of all means will qualify, subject to an appropriate contribution; abolishing the means test in personal injuries cases; and bringing the capital rules for green form advice into line with those for civil legal aid. A single person who has savings of more than £890 is excluded from the scheme, however low his income. Legal aid should be extended to tribunals, particularly the social security commissioners. The commissioners are referred to in the Select Committee's report as a decision-making body, from which, as the Attorney-General knows, the next step is the Court of Appeal.
The Department of Social Security is almost always legally represented in such cases. Only 3,000 cases were decided in 1987—the last year for which figures are available. In written parliamentary answers, the Attorney-General conceded that only about 200 cases led to hearings, which on average take two hours. At current


rates, the cost of advocacy would be no more than £20,000. Parliament is legislating for rights that cannot be enforced because citizens cannot pay.
The decline in legal aid and assistance is real and substantial; 8 per cent. fewer people used the green form scheme in 1988–89 than in 1987–88. That is the largest, and only the second ever, drop in the use of the scheme, from 1,077,054 people to 994,066.
There was a 3 per cent. drop in civil legal aid certificates over the same period, whereas previously there had been a steady rise. Fewer and fewer citizens qualify. This year, 56 per cent. of the population are eligible, whereas the figure for 1979 was 79 per cent. Justice is being cash limited; I call it justice capping. Never before has there been such a need for people to be given proper legal advice and assistance. Does the Attorney-General accept that fewer people qualify, and does he think that that is a healthy development?
The duty solicitor scheme is in danger of collapse. Research from Birmingham university, which was published at the end of last year, shows that the safeguards that were built into the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 have not worked. Only 25 per cent. of suspects in police stations seek advice, and fewer receive it. Research shows—and I am sure that the Attorney-General is familiar with it—that 22 ploys are used by the police to discourage requests for advice.
Citizens can obtain advice only if solicitors are willing and able to administer the scheme. Fewer and fewer solicitors are taking part in the service, which places greater strain on those who participate in it. The scheme does not provide adequate compensation for being on duty overnight or at weekends. I should be the last person to argue for a pay rise for solicitors—I have yet to meet a starving solicitor—but the quality of advice that is given must in some way reflect the number of solicitors who are taking part. What is the Attorney-General's solution to the problems of the duty solicitor scheme?
I am deeply concerned about how the contracting-out of legal services will be operated. Franchising may be good enough for McDonald's, but it is not appropriate for justice to be treated as a junk food chain. Will the Attorney-General tell the House what progress and decisions have been made on franchising?
Several hon. Members are present who support the concept of family courts. The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) was a member of the Commitee that considered the Children Bill. He and I tabled a new clause that would have realised a long-standing ambition—the creation of a family court. On Report, the Solicitor-General took the House by surprise by announcing the establishment or existence of what he called "a rolling programme" of the review of family law and administration. On Second Reading of that Bill in another place, the Lord Chancellor tried to placate the supporters of the family courts campaign by saying that the Children Bill allowed for the establishment of a family court in all but name.
If that is so, I cannot understand why the Courts and Legal Services Bill, which is currently being considered in another place, does not go the distance by allowing for the creation of a family court. What worries me is that there does not seem to be a time limit on the rolling programme

that was referred to by the Solicitor-General. In addition, its terms of reference have never been properly defined. Government agencies and Departments meet regularly, but Parliament is not kept informed of developments. We want a proper family court—not a series of piecemeal changes, but one comprehensive change that will allow the procedure to be adopted. We were told many times in Committee on the Children Bill that the substantive law has been codified, but it is now time for the court structure to follow. Without a court structure, substantive law will never be properly achieved.

Mr. Devlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, but, as he knows, I have a great interest in this matter. Many parliamentary questions were tabled a week ago last Thursday, in answer to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General revealed that a programme of reforms was being worked on by an inter-departmental committee. Unfortunately, it does not appear to have met since last November, and many people will be concerned that the rolling programme does not appear to be rolling very fast. What has the hon. Gentleman to say about that?

Mr. Vaz: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree with everything that he said. He was in the Chamber on the dramatic day when the right hon. Member fo Blaby (Mr. Lawson) resigned, thus turning the Children Bill, which was being debated, into a controversial Bill when previously it had always progressed by consensus. We raised that matter with the Solicitor-General. The right hon. and learned Gentleman uses marvellous adjectives to describe the family court system, and he said that he was sorry that he could not provide the "all-singing and all-dancing" family court that we required. He went on to coin another phrase, the "rolling programme". As the hon. Member for Stockton, South correctly said, despite a number of parliamentary questions having been tabled in a completely unorchestrated way, the response by the Attorney-General was disappointing.

Mr. Devlin: I am sorry to keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is probably thinking that the hon. Gentleman has never specified what he means by a family court. When I moved the new clause in Committee, I was fairly specific about what I particularly wanted. I knew that there was not a consensus and that different people supported different ideas. Will the hon. Gentleman give us a better idea of how he sees the family court? My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General would be interested to hear it and would then be in a better position to respond.

Mr. Vaz: I shall not be tempted down that path and shall not turn the debate into a major debate on family courts. The Attorney-General is well aware of what we mean when we describe the need for a family court. I am sure that he has read at length the extracts from Hansard, including the speech of the hon. Member for Stockton, South. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman replies, he will probably say what all Law Officers have said from the Dispatch Box when this matter has been raised with them—"No". We shall be interested to hear whether that "No" has been tempered in any way, in the ferocity of its delivery.
As I said, the county court system is in need of major surgery. Like so many other parts of the judicial system, it is under-resourced and understaffed. There have been numerous complaints in cases where the inaction of the courts has resulted in a denial of justice. The proposals in the Courts and Legal Services Bill and the Children Act will result in more work being given to the county courts. When those proposals are enacted—the Children Act is not yet in force—it will bring the county court system to a grinding halt, unless there is a huge increase in resources and efficiency.
Those who use the county court system pay for the service. It operated at a notional profit of £6 million in 1988–89. yet the service in many parts of the country is appalling. The issuing of summonses has been delayed and there is a backlog in dealing with correspondence. According to the Law Society, Hastings county court is said to have a one-month backlog in dealing with its post. As at 1 November 1989, Birmingham county court had 8,000 unopened items of mail—the scenario that makes even Lunar house in Croydon look efficient.
I support the establishment of an ombudsman to investigate the complaints of maladministration or an extension of the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. I strongly believe that the public should be compensated when they suffer financial loss because of the state of the county courts. What words of comfort has the Attorney-General to offer them?
In passing, I should like to mention the state of the magistrates courts and the delays and injustices suffered there. Will the Attorney-General bring to the attention of the Home Secretary my worry and that of many others about the delays? In particular, I strongly support the idea of a fixed appointment system in the magistrates and juvenile courts as the best way of organising court business. That will help the system save a great deal of money. It will stop the legal aid fund paying out a great deal of money to solicitors for waiting around in the courts for cases to be called. It will provide a better deal for court users. The key must surely be proper liaison. I hope to see a structure of court user committees established in all local courts that will allow all those who participate in the legal service to be properly represented and to put their views.
I speak as one who has worked in a law centre. There is no better way of providing public legal services in terms of legal advice and assistance to ordinary people than that system. Law centres, citizens advice bureaux, consumer advice centres, rights centres and the like have been established in many cities, but they are always beset by funding crises. Does the Attorney-General agree that they are an essential part of public legal services? If so, when will the Government come up with more funding for them? The case for a centrally funded network of law centres is unanswerable. Why should people be denied access to legal information and advice just because they live in a certain part of the country and their local authority, which is more than likely to be Labour controlled, does not fund a centre?
I commend my local authority, Leicester city council, for the way in which it spends its money so wisely in providing three excellent law centres—the Leicester rights law centre, the self-help neighbourhood project and the Belgrave and Highfields law centre—as well as assisting in the funding of consumer advice centres and citizens advice bureaux. Justice would be denied to thousands of my

constituents if anything happened to those important local organisations. Let us have a public commitment from the Attorney-General and let his assurance be simple—that more cash will be forthcoming for those important elements in our legal services.
There are so many other matters that I should like to bring to the attention of the House that, if I were to carry on speaking, I would take up the entire time allocated for private Members' motions. I am sure that other hon. Members wish to contribute, including my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser)—who has a tremendous record on campaigning on these issues—and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). Unfortunately, time does not permit me to continue much longer. Justice can be made available to all our citizens equally only if the system works. In many respects—the Crown prosecution service, the legal aid system, the duty solicitor scheme, law centres, county courts and magistrates courts—it is not working efficiently or effectively. Parliament must ensure that, in the interests of justice, those problems are resoled with a minimum of delay. If they are not resolved, millions of our citizens will suffer from injustice.

M. David Martin: I have listened with interest to the rarefied contribution, if I may call it that, by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on various matters about which he plainly has thought deeply and has considerable experience. No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will answer many of the hon. Gentleman's questions.
I ceased practising at the Bar in 1976, before the Crown prosecution service came into being, but that leads me to declare an interest. Although I gain no money from practice at the Bar or from any other form of legal practice, I have had experience of such practice. I have held certain views on the country's legal services for many years. and the hon. Gentleman's motion gives me an ideal opportunity to express them. In doing so, I shall give rather wider consideration than he did to the legal aid services, the duty solicitors scheme, the county courts and the advice centres.
Before I embark on more general themes, however, let me take up what the the hon. Gentleman said about the county courts. For far too many years the legal framework has been diversifying into an excessive number of tribunals and other courts that are not part of the central system—the structure containing the High Court, the county courts, the Supreme Court. So much money and so many staff have had to be found that, sooner rather than later, we shall need another adjudicature Act. That will mean taking a close look at the whole structure of our court system to establish whether matters are now being dealt with in the right courts.
Diversification has gone mad since the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958. It was a mistake to diversify too much, rather than concentrating on improving the system as it existed for many years. That system could have incorporated many of the cases now being heard before tribunals that are not part of the main structure—a remedy to which we must address ourselves in future years.
Parliament contains many legal experts, although, surprisingly, not many are present today.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Special pleading.

Mr. Martin: It is not unusual for those who speak in debates of this kind to perform such a function.
The number of lawyers in both Houses of Parliament has always been considered a mixed blessing at best, and a curse at worst. I once read in a history of Parliament that in 1404 a parliament indoctum had been held in Coventry, from which all lawyers were excluded. That is obviously still a popular notion in some quarters, but the habit did not catch on any more than the cry of, "Let us hang all the lawyers" that was heard during the Peasants' Revolt 23 years earlier. Nevertheless, variations on that cry have been heard on many occasions, particularly from unsuccessful litigants or political revolutionaries, exasperated or frustrated by the pace of constitutional change and filled with a fervent desire to advance their own notions of liberty in the teeth of established law, custom or practice and the innate conservatism—with a small "c"—of any civilisation founded on the rule of law.
Mention of innate conservatism leads me to one of my themes, namely, what the present excellent Lord Chancellor is up against in promoting—by means of the Courts and Legal Services Bill—the reforms that are so crucial to the improvement of our legal services for the benefit of the consumer, or customer, who is foolish enough ever to attempt to resolve anything through a lawyer. From the White Paper onwards, my right hon. and noble Friend has been up against special interests that have been marshalled on a huge scale, particularly the existing power structure of the legal profession and the Bench. The judges' case-the Bar's case against some of his more imaginative reforms must be examined on the basis of narrow and special self-interest, rather than that of the public interest that they profess to have so close to their hearts.
The public interest is often paraded as women and children are herded into the van of an army that fears attack and hopes by such means to inhibit and deflect the fire of its opponents. Fortunately, my right hon. and noble Friend has been assisted in his task from the outset by the hysterical virulence of the Bench and Bar opposition not only to proposals that might have been considered to need modification, but to any proposals that appear to pose the slightest threat to the status quo and that past investigations under a different leadership in the House of Lords had not recommended.
Top judges, lesser judges, top barristers and lesser barristers alike, have fallen over themselves in the extravagance of their condemnation. It has been said—or, on many occasions, blustered in outrage—that my right hon. and noble Friend is attacking the independence of the Bar; that through such action he is attacking the independence of the judiciary; and that that in turn mounts an assault on the universal liberties that have been guarded so jealously for centuries by an independent judiciary. Those claims are bunkum, and should be examined far more closely before distinguished people parade them.
The Lord Chancellor is proposing to widen the rights of audience, which has been done many times before, not least in Devon and Cornwall. I have practised on the western circuit, and I know from personal experience what happened in those counties; I have not practised in Wales, but the rights of audience have been widened there, as well as in county and magistrates courts. That has not led to

any loss of independence for the Bar, or to so much as a hint of its destruction, even where there is joint audience with solicitors.
The extensions that have already been granted have shown that it must not be assumed that those who possess a right will use it. Like every other hon. Member, I have the right to apply to the Crown to be appointed steward of the Chiltern Hundreds or the Manor of Northstead—and I understand that I would be appointed if I applied. However, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who looks extremely concerned at the possiblity of my making such an application, that I leave it to others to apply from time to time.
The same applies to many solicitors, who have rights of audience in the places that I have mentioned but choose not to take them up, preferring to get a barrister in. Every citizen has the right to appear to plead his own cause in every court of law, but few choose to do so. That is another indication that the conferral of a right does not guarantee that that right will be exercised.
With my experience of the Bar and my knowledge of its history, I have no doubt that it will prove strong enough—as it has for centuries—to survive change, not only the changes in rights of audience for general civil or criminal matters but those involving specialist knowledge of commercial, taxation or chancery matters. There will always be a need for good, independent contractors. The fact that some building firms have become very large and have in-house electricians and plumbers does not mean that independent contractors cannot continue to succeed. I see no difference, in principle, between their position and that of the independent barrister advising clients on intricate matters. Surely they have nothing to fear; nor do many express fears. They will survive the moderate reforms that are being proposed.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I do not quarrel with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, will he explain how someone living in Devon who has a complicated chancery matter requiring attention and advocacy in the High Court will secure the services of an independent advocate skilled in that area of the law unless someone can advise him who those skilled advocates are? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a danger of people who are not competent to do particular types of work taking on such work?

Mr. Martin: That is a valid point, but the present position is no different. If a member of the public wants advice on a complicated matter, he can visit his local solicitor who may decide that he can deal with it himself and not recommend that counsel should be employed to give better advice. That sort of thing could still happen under the new arrangements. Adequate information must be provided and there should be wide advertising of barristers who have particular skills so that people in Devon can read The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mirror, the Sun or whatever and see advertisements for the services of competent counsel, based in London if necessary or anywhere else, to whom they can have direct access. That would improve the present position in which solicitors have the discretion as to whether to bring in counsel.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: A few moments ago my hon. Friend said that a solicitor might deem that he had the knowledge. He may deem that, but,


as my grandmother used to say, his saying so does not make it so. He may be so conceited to believe that he is competent when he is not.

Mr. Martin: That is right and my hon. Friend has made that point graphically. Some people may believe that they know something, but they do not and often another person should be brought in to advise on the matter. Many complaints have arisen about that. Some solicitors always go to counsel whether or not they believe themselves competent to deal with the case and problems may arise when the client thinks that he has to pay two people when he could have paid only one. I do not believe that those matters will change significantly under the new system. They will certainly not change for the worse for the customer, but some proposals may improve the position.
I have no doubt that the Bar will adjust to the new arrangements. When the fees increase and standards of living are not threatened but improved, no one will admit to my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General or my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General—who will all probably have retired by then—that they were right and that the reforms did not mean the destruction of the Bar. People will not admit that the Bar is actually thriving when they did not think that it would. The Bar will thrive and those who said that that would happen will get no credit for saying so.
An equally substantial charge about the reforms made against my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor was repeated last week at Exeter university by Lord Ackner. The charge is that my right hon. and noble Friend is making it easier to extend executive control and to deprofessionalise the legal profession. The Lord Chancellor is said to be arrogating to himself, through an advisory committee, unacceptable powers not only of widening the categories of those who will be entitled to plead, but of setting out clear codes or standards of education, training and professional conduct.
Constitutionalists, whether they be self-appointed, elected or otherwise, throw up their hands in horror that so powerful a Minister should presume to exercise such awesome power in such a way, assisted and indeed "dominated"—to use Lord Ackner's words last week at Exeter—by people who
do not have expertise in the very profession which it is their function to oversee.
In other words, "Intelligent laymen—keep out. You have nothing to offer so far as those very important matters are concerned with regard to standards of education, training and professional conduct of lawyers."
If only those who had expertise were able to make judgments in those matters, very few Ministers would ever be appointed. In some cases, Ministers are appointed to oversee engineering, but they are not engineers. Lay people on both sides of the House must take highly intricate decisions when they are not necessarily qualified to do so. However, in our humility we do not say that we cannot take those decisions; we take them. That is the same with regard to the lay benches. Lay magistrates have no legal training, but they give of their time and use their experience as people of the world. They offer their experience in that highly intricate——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They are advised by a competent clerk.

Mr. Martin: Indeed, that is only part of the function of lay magistrates. As lay people, they have an important function in helping in the process of the law. They must take decisions about what happens in the courts while the clerk simply advises. The lay magistrate plays a very important role and I do not see why lay people should not be competent and so be part of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee, which is to be chaired by a judge. Their common sense could be of great benefit to the profession.
For generations, the office of Lord Chancellor has involved the most extraordinary totalitarian powers. Constitutionalists have commented on those powers on many occasions. The theory of the job is quite horrifying when we consider what powers are concentrated in the Lord Chancellorship.
The Lord Chancellor is the most senior Cabinet Minister. He has precedence even over the Prime Minister. With such Executive power in charge of the system of access to justice in this country, the Lord Chancellor appoints—and people advise him about the appointment of—virtually irremovable judges. The Lord Chancellor decides who will practise as silks, Queen's counsel or senior barristers and he also appoints recorders. He receives advice, although not necessarily only expert advice.
The reason why the Lord Chancellor's powers do not in practice become intolerable or lead to the goosestep in this country is that they have been exercised in the true British fashion of good sense and restraint in the context of the firmly rooted traditions of a free country governed through an open parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Hear, hear.

Mr. Martin: I note the support that I hear from my hon, Friend. Parliamentary democracy is the main bastion of people's freedoms. In particular, the House of Commons has proved historically the best guardian of liberty. It is a fanciful notion that judges carry out that role in any but the most marginal of ways or that they have ever done so or are ever likely to do so.
The much-vaunted role of judges in administrative law, in protecting the liberties of the subject, is grossly exaggerated. Parliament holds Ministers to account and it makes and changes the laws. The fear of having to face Parliament, and in particular this House, and so preserve a majority in this place, is the real check on ministerial powers and actions; it is not the apparent check claimed by judges. The judges have a role to play, but that should not be exaggerated.
The basis for the complaints made by judges lies in the power structure and influence that they possess at the moment. That applies in the courts, with rights of audience, and to the conduct of barristers and the Bar generally. It also relates to the Bar's promotion prospects. Those factors have an influence on the way in which people are promoted and the advice given to the Lord Chancellor about advocates. Wider influence in the way in which that advocacy is conducted will do nothing but good for the standards of independent advocacy in court.
There are bound to be amendments to the Courts and Legal Services Bill, and they will meet many of the criticisms that have been made. The biggest outrage is being done to my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor by people not considering the proposals in a


calm and reasonable manner. The atmosphere has changed because of the damage caused by those who went off at the deep end at the outset. Misrepresenting the proposals as an attack on the constitution and representing judges and barristers as the guardians of liberty, any erosion of whose traditional rights, powers and privilege will lead to the loss of our treasured freedoms, is just not on. In future years, when legal services are operated in the light of the new Act, people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

Mr. John Fraser: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on his success in the ballot. Legal services, including legal aid and advice, are to citizens' rights what the National Health Service is to their health, yet, in terms of parliamentary time, legal services are the Cinderella of parliamentary debate. The Government have not helped. Despite the importance of the subject, the Government gave Opposition Members no time to discuss the wide-ranging civil justice review. The Government have provided no time to discuss the Lord Chancellor's Green Paper, White Paper, or the reform of the profession. The Government have consulted virtually everybody except hon. Members. To emulate the example of High Court judges, we might have had a little more time if we had taken some industrial action. The House owes my hon. Friend a debt of gratitude for his luck and for his judgment.
The House creates many rights and duties and provides guarantees of liberty and fair play. At one end of the scale it provides for the right of silence—although that is under threat at the moment—and it provides consumer guarantees at the other end of the scale. It provides thousands of rights. However, rights and duties are meaningless unless they are understood and operate in practice with equal force, irrespective of the income, wealth, power or influence of those in whom they are confirmed. The scale of legal services and how they affect people's daily lives is much broader than that which is measured by the time that we have to discuss such matters in the House.
For instance, in the last complete year for which figures are available, more than 600,000 people received legal aid orders for the defence of criminal proceedings—incidentally, a rise of about 250,000 in 10 years, which goes to show how ineffective the Government have been in checking crime. Every year, about 2 million people are prosecuted for offences ranging from the most serious to the most trivial, but all those people have an interest in the efficiency and integrity with which our courts are conducted. Each year, hundreds of thousands of people will be the victims of crime. Their interest are often unvoiced or unheard, but they have an interest in the efficiency of our legal service and, in particular, the prosecution service.
It is said that it is better that 10 guilty men should go free than that one innocent man should be convicted, but it is much better that all guilty men are convicted and all innocent men should go free and that the guilty do not go free simply because of the incompetence or inefficiency of the system. Last year, about 250,000 people received legal aid for civil proceedings. Of course, many more will seek assistance and advice. Millions of people will seek advice

in one form or another—for example, advice on housing, social security, immigration and police matters—and millions of people are served by the green form.
Only last week, the Financial Times mentioned the need for advice. We were told that
At least 200,000 households—1 per cent. of the national total—are in serious financial trouble because of the increase in the use of credit, according to a working party set up…at the request of Sir Gordon Borrie".
The report went on to recommend an extension of advice services.
Hon. Members are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East for raising several issues and giving hon. Members a chance to raise matters concerning legal services.
I did not wish to say anything about the duty solicitor scheme, but I hope that the Attorney-General will discuss with the Home Secretary some improvement in the way in which defendants are advised about the duty solicitor scheme at police stations. There have been reports of the 22 ploys that the police use to rob people of their rights to legal representation. There is great professionalism among custody officers. There has been a massive change since the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. All practising lawyers and academics come across cases in which people have asked for legal representation at a police station but have not received it or have not had their rights properly explained. One suggestion is that the person in custody should be required to make a positive statement that he does not require help from his own solicitor or from the duty solicitor, rather than ticking a box, which is what occurs at the moment.
I do not intend to politicise every issue. There are some issues upon which the Opposition will probably support the Lord Chancellor more strongly than we support the Attorney-General. We shall not turn it into a partisan debate. However, I shall say something about the competence, efficiency, effectiveness and coverage of some of our legal services, such as the prosecution service and legal aid, and then refer to some ways in which the Labour party sees the development of legal services, advice and representation at their broadest. I shall refer first to competence, coverage, efficiency and effectiveness and some of the matters for which the Attorney-General is responsible.
We welcome the Lord Chancellor's extension of legal aid for the elderly and for children, the extension of legal aid to some personal injury cases, and the disaggregation of some assets and income. We welcome the Government's long overdue admission—they have told us previously that the figures could not be collected—that only 56 per cent. of the population were eligible for legal aid before the recent changes were made. Although we welcome those changes, they do not go nearly far enough. The loss of legal aid eligibility is a massive blemish on any Government's duty to make civil and legal rights a reality.
In 10 years, the number of people eligible for legal aid has fallen by about 14 million individuals and 5·5 million households. It is almost as though we had said to 14 million people, "You no longer have access to a National Health Service hospital." That is a correct analogy. In the past two years alone, 1 million households and 2·5 million people have ceased to be eligible for legal aid. The reason is that the increases in the limits for legal aid—the allowances that enable people to qualify for legal aid and assistance—have increased far more slowly than either the


increase in the retail prices index or the increase in earnings. Taking 1979 as the base year, and giving each of the figures an index of 100 for 1979, we find that the increases in the allowances for a single person to qualify for legal aid have gone up by only 48 per cent., and the increases in allowances for a couple with two children to qualify for legal aid have gone up by 53 per cent. In contrast, since 1979 the retail prices index has gone up by 93 per cent., and average earnings have gone up by 134 per cent.
That is the plain reason why, during the past decade, the effect of successive reviews of legal aid eligibility limits has been to take more and more people out of eligibility. That is effectively to destroy the civil rights of millions of people who might want to claim damages for personal injury, apply for custody of children, or conduct property disputes. We simply cannot divorce civil rights for legal aid from effective enforcement and the provision of legal aid for those who are in need of advice and assistance.
Research by the London School of Economics and the department of statistical mathematical sciences has shown that the figures that were disputed by Cyril Glasser, which we quoted extensively during the passage of the Legal Aid Bill, were correct. We asked the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor to cease to deny the effects of the legal aid income limit and capital limit policies and, in addition to the cases that were recently dealt with by the Lord Chancellor, to restore eligibility to 1979 limits.
It is interesting that, although the number of civil legal aid certificates has remained relatively static over the past 10 years, the number of criminal legal aid orders has just about doubled, increasing from about 300,000 in 1979 to 600,000 in 1989. Of course, people who are accused of criminal offences must have representation and a fair trial. Indeed, they cannot have a fair trial without representation. However, those who have not even been accused of a criminal offence have equal rights to representation. What is even worse about the way in which we have whittled away eligibility for legal aid is that civil legal aid costs very little and, because there is a sieve, many of the cases are successful. Many cases involve the recovery of damages and of costs. Therefore, the burden of providing civil legal aid and of extending the limits is minor, compared with the expense of criminal legal aid work. In the light of the most recent research, I ask the Attorney-General seriously to consider restoring eligibility to the 1979 level of about 80 per cent. of the population.
Apart from eligibility, there are further problems with legal aid relating to the quality and choice of representation and to the efficiency and the quality of the legal system. I know that it is intended that the Legal Aid Board and the recent changes should improve efficiency, but it is an outrage that in 1988—the last year for which complete figures are available—in south London, part of which area I represent, the average waiting time for a legal aid application to be approved was eight months. Even now, it is not unusual for the granting of a legal aid certificate to take six months. That is not good enough.
The time taken to administer the legal aid system once a case is successful is also indefensible. I am sure that, like me, other hon. Members have often come across cases in which somebody has been successful in a claim—it might have been settled or it might have been the result of going to court—and damages have been awarded, but because of the operation of the statutory charge and sometimes because of the inefficiency of legal aid committees it is

months, and sometimes almost a year, between the time that the damages were received and the time that they reach the assisted person. That cannot be right.
There is another thing wrong with the system—or where there is a great danger of something being quite wrong with the system. I refer to the choice and the quality of representation. There is a great danger that legally aided people will soon be offered a lower quality of representation simply because the rates of pay for legal aid lawyers are getting further and further behind the comparative rates of payment for those in privately funded work. Research has already shown that lawyers are tending to leave legal aid work in their 30s. As soon as lawyers become experienced, they are moving from legal aid work to more remunerative work. Other research has shown that about 40 per cent. of solicitors had given up, or were seriously considering giving up, their criminal legal aid work.
The gulf between the payment of legal aid work for lawyers and the payment of non-legal aid work is growing wider. Last year the pay settlement for those doing legal aid work was about 6 per cent. This year, rumour has it that the Goverment—no doubt for reasons connected with the ambulance workers and other considerations—have suggested a 6·5 per cent. increase in remumeration for legal aid work, which is much the same as the amount offered to other public employees. As a consequence fewer and fewer well-qualified solicitors or counsel will want to—or be able to afford to—do legal aid work. It is not a question of people being greedy because there comes a point in the running of a legal aid practice at which it is no longer possible to continue with legal aid work because it will be loss-making.
As I have said, it is not a question of the greed of those who are operating on behalf of legally assisted persons; it is the sheer necessity of life. If the payment for the work that is done is not sufficient to reward the service or to pay the rent, rates and all the other costs that are involved in running a legal aid practice, there is a great danger that the rates of reward will turn legal aid work into a second-class business and then it is only a matter of time before the quality of representation also becomes second class.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East referred to law centres. We ask the Government for a clear statement that funds will be made available to save the law centres that are currently supported or that were supported by the Lord Chancellor's Department and where the responsibility has been transferred to the Legal Aid Board. Law centres do an immense amount of good work and we in the Labour party should like to see them supported nationally, by a partnership with local authorities. The very least that the Goverment should do is to meet the case of the law centres and to continue the funding of those that are now supported from central funds. If they do not, at least two or three centres are bound to close because the necessary funds cannot be found elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East rightly devoted much of his speech to dealing with the Crown prosecution service. The Opposition are not satisfied with the efficiency and effectiveness of the Crown prosecution service. I do not say that with any joy or pleasure because we have always supported the concept of the CPS and of an independence of judgment about whether a prosecution should be brought. We do not share the sour grapes that have been expressed in some quarters about the CPS. I


know that there is a degree of jealousy and sourness about the very fact that the CPS was set up. Although we have always welcomed and supported the service, that will not prevent us from lodging criticisms if we believe them to be justified. We do not want the CPS to have a monopoly of prosecutions. It is extremely important that lawyers, and especially those who are likely to become judges, have experience of both prosecution and defence. Once they have learned to walk, there is a real case for them having the chance to do a bit of running—as members of the CPS in the Crown courts. However, perhaps we can discuss that at greater length when the Courts and Legal Services Bill comes before this House. Having said that about our support of the CPS, we are entitled to an explanation of why millions of pounds have been thrown away on cases that have not even been put before a jury for decision. I can think of about four or five cases that have failed before the courts. If we were to take the cost of those four or five abortive cases and transferred that money to the Legal Aid Board, it would be enough to keep the law centres going for another year or so.
The public want convictions of the guilty and the effective prosecution of criminals because that is one of the best forms of deterrence. I am sure that other hon. Members share my experience of being contacted by victims or the families of victims because they are aghast and infuriated by the way in which some cases are conducted. I shall give four examples from my personal experience and wish to put on the record the fact that the Attorney-General has treated one of these cases most sympathetically. People have come to me about examples in which there appears to be a strong case of causing death by dangerous driving and without any consultation the charge has been reduced to one of careless driving, to the immense fury of those who have lost a loved one. That is just one example, and, although that is the case that I have raised with the Attorney-General, other such cases have been raised with me.
A second example is that people have often come to me because they are infuriated that bail has been granted to a defendant who has been guilty of the most violent assault and who has threatened future assaults against the victim, and when there has been no degree of discussion between the prosecution and the victim about the bail conditions that should be suggested to the court.
I have looked at the evidence in a murder case, which was provided to me by the family involved, in which I believe that the family had every reason to question the way in which the evidence was collected, preserved and presented. I have spoken to junior members of the Crown prosecution service, who have complained about the burden of their work and about having, at a junior level, to conduct murder cases.
Turning now to the Kevin Taylor case, I do not question the innocence of those who were acquitted because a Crown case was drawn. I do not question for one moment the innocence of Mr. Kevin Taylor, who was acquitted by the court. It does not seem proper that a case should proceed to trial and be dropped when, according to newspaper reports, about £1 million had been spent on its preparation. If a case is to be dropped, surely it should be dropped well before it comes to trial.
In another recent case, that of the Crown v. Coren and Greenwood, allegations were made that information had been obtained from the Office of Fair Trading, including information about takeovers. That case involved not simply the guilt or innocence of those standing in the dock but the integrity of public administration and of a public institution. We are told in the newspapers that in that case about £750,000 had been spent and the case was dropped almost at the beginning of the trial.
It is sad to see headlines such as the one in The Sunday Times which said:
Prosecution service failing miserably.
The Attorney-General must learn the lessons of recent well-publicised cases and others and of the expensive farce of trials which are abandoned at a relatively late stage because the prosecution was inadequate.
I am told by the National Audit Office that about two thirds of all cases which fail are dropped on the first court hearing. I hope that the Attorney-General will recognise that we support the CPS. We want to see it well rewarded. We want a proper career structure for those who join it and proper rates of remuneration. We support the service, but the Attorney-General must respond to criticisms of the standard and performance of the CPS and the amount of resources put behind it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East spent some time on discussing the efficiency of county courts. I remind the Attorney-General of the grave misgivings of those who practise in the county courts about the efficiency of the system. We should expect first-class efficiency from our judical system as a matter of course, especially if jurisdiction is to be transferred to county courts from the High Court, as recommended in the Courts and Legal Services Bill. If that is to be the case, we must be assured that the game will be conducted on a pitch which is fit to play on.
I talked recently in private to a county court judge who told me that in his court it took about two months to reply to a letter. That is simply not good enough. In other courts, it takes weeks or months to issue a summons or county court petition. In some courts there is well-documented evidence from practitioners that, when the postal budget runs out, the court does not send out replies to letters or summonses until the next month's budget is available.
If business is to be transferred to the county courts, we must have continuous trial centres. It is not good enough for a trial on a major issue in a county court to begin one day, be put off for three weeks and then be put off for another six weeks.
Whether there is a transfer of business or not, it is important that the county courts work efficiently and use their surplus fee income for the improvement of the service rather than showing a profit which is put into the Treasury. Litigants pay for a service in their fees, so if there is a surplus of fees let it go to improve the service, not to provide money for public expenditure.
I turn lastly to developments which the Labour party intends to bring about in the legal services and the legal system. I have already mentioned some changes in my remarks. The Opposition's principle is that real equality under the law is possible only if people have the ability to enforce their rights. I always refer to the quotation of Anatole France adopted by the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers:


The law in its majestic equality forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread.
That sums up the notion that freedom of equality under the law does not always meet reality. In the words of the Labour party policy review:
Real equality under the law only exists in a society which provides equal access to the law and equal treatment before the courts. Neither is provided under our present legal system.
There can be no equality of representation when there are gross social and economic discrepancies.
Advice and representation must never be limited by inability to pay. That is why we say that coverage of legal aid advice must be restored and extended to representation before coroners' courts, tribunals such as the immigration and social security appeal tribunals and the Appeal Court. I use the word "representation" in a wide sense for a particular reason. In some cases the services of a consumer adviser, or a specialist such as a refugee worker, immigration counsellor or non-lawyer who specialise in social security, will be just as appropriate and sometimes more appropriate than the services of a solicitor or barrister. It is important that the lay person should be able to obtain trained, professional, objective and adequate representation which is relevant to the case.
Equality under the law is not simply about individual rights. Whether in a court or tribunal, it is about organising, informing and representing consumers, either individually or collectively. Representing and advocating consumers' rights should not be limited to members of the legal profession. I do not exclude the legal profession for one moment. Often it can represent people in cases of consumer rights, patient rights, equal opportunities, tenants' rights and rights of the small business man in partnership with other representatives.
I pay tribute to my local law centre, which has done a great deal for a group of people who own small businesses in the Brixton area. People found themselves assailed by large financial institutions who, for example, want to take away their security of tenure as a tenant and substitute a licence. To reflect the breadth of provision in the legal aid system the Labour party would extend the scope of the Legal Aid Board to that of a legal services commission. Furthermore, we would provide equality of access to the professions. I know that there have been improvements, but in my experience it is particularly difficult for someone to be called to the Bar and to succeed if he or she is from a working class background. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There is a problem in being called to the Bar. People from a working class background who go into the solicitors' profession are guaranteed an income almost as soon as they qualify, but that is not so with the Bar. That is not a reflection on the Bar or an attack on it, but we must recognise that there is a problem. If one is from a family with a low income, it is difficult to support oneself during the initial period. We should encourage such people to go into the professions.
The composition of the professions should represent and reflect the composition of the population that they advise and represent in court. The same is true of the composition of the judiciary and magistracy. I use the word "Bench" to cover both. Like the professions, the Bench must be more representative of the community that it serves and show greater social awareness. There have been well-publicised cases of judges who do not seem to understand the social conditions of those who appear

before them. A joke is sometimes made about a judge who is reputed to have put an alcoholic on probation. He asked him to promise that he would never drink again, not even a small sip of sherry before dinner. The judiciary and the Bench do not reflect the population that they represent. That causes difficulties.
Our system of selecting, training and promoting magistrates and judges remains mysterious, secretive and unaccountable and reeks of patronage. It should be neither the duty nor the privilege of a political Cabinet Minister to appoint members of the Bench. A Labour Government would create an independent judicial appointments commission, free from political control and better equipped to appoint those who sit in judgment on fellow citizens. We shall have a department for the administration of legal affairs, directly accountable through a Minister to the House of Commons and responsible for legal aid, courts, tribunals and their procedures, the judicial commission and the whole range of advice and representation. Such a department would be charged with putting the needs of users and consumers first. We want an efficient, user-friendly, legal system, not one which is full of mystery and lacks accountability.
I know that this is only a personal view, but I find the courts intimidating. The judge is dressed in the clothes of another century—[ Laughter.] I am simply remarking on the intimidatory appearance of those who wear wigs, Mr. Speaker. It was no reflection on the Chair. Our courts are intimidating. Even the construction of the dais is intended to rick the necks of those who sit in the well of the court having to look at the judge. We must construct a less intimidating, more friendly, legal system.
The Labour party does not want a legal system which is narrowly bounded by the organisation of the Bar, solicitors and the formal court framework. We interpret the need to provide legal services widely as a need for a network of advice, representation and assistance to uphold citizens' rights. The Government and local authorities jointly have a duty to provide such services through advice centres, law centres and a variety of institutions which supplement and provide access, as well as through the traditional legal professions.
There is no point is giving people rights or imposing duties on others unless the way in which we provide legal aid and advice and organise the professions turns rights and duties into realities. That is the policy that the Labour party will pursue when it is elected to office.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on his good fortune in the ballot and on his discrimination in making use of that opportunity to bring so many important topics before the House.
As I read the motion, I found myself wishing that the hon. Gentleman would cheer up a little. As I read through the catalogue of disasters that he perceived I was reminded of a song of my youth in which the author recalls the lurid and various physical misfortunes that befall what nowadays is called his extended family. The hon. Gentleman looks at the family of legal services and sees nothing but feuding, crises of confidence and a serious state of collapse, a sort of super-collapse. It is not like that out of doors and I hope to take some time to justify that assertion.
The hon. Gentleman asked many questions. He had the courtesy to send me a fax this afternoon which set out some of them. It was not particularly legible, more because of the handwriting than because of the technology. The hon. Gentleman asked many questions during his interesting speech and I shall endeavour to deal with many of them. I cannot deal with all of them. If I did, I could not make some of the points that I have prepared. Consequently, what I have to say will be more disjointed than I should like, although perhaps not more disjointed than usual.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I agreed that there was a serious crisis affecting the Crown prosecution service. The answer is no. I acknowledge readily the handicaps which have always afflicted it and which continue to do so, but they are diminishing. In the words of the Director of Public Prosecutions in his recent evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the service is "making progress" towards its objectives. There is no crisis. Nor do I consider there to be feuding with the police or anything like it and I shall take more time on that shortly.
It follows that my answer to the hon. Gentleman's question whether I agree that the Crown prosecution service should be scrapped and started again is a resounding no. I do not agree that it has damaged the criminal justice system. Quite the reverse. There are many complimentary observations to be found in some of the representations made to the Select Committee and many more that come to me from magistrates, judges and others to the effect that great advantage has stemmed from the institution of the service.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) strongly support the principle of separating the prosecution decisions from those of the investigation of criminal offences and initial charging. That is common ground between us. So far as I know, nobody who made representations of a formal nature to the Select Committee has questioned the desirability and propriety of that principle.
We must ensure that a new service, whose inception constituted a major revolution in the conduct of our affairs, settles down and is given the resources to enable it to do its job. I agree with those who say that the service started too soon, in the sense that the time scale imposed on the Government by the abolition of the metropolitan county councils did not permit sufficient time for a smooth transition. One should acknowledge that it did not permit sufficient time for the examination of every possibility that might have to be faced. Accordingly, it has been common ground among those who have studied these matters, not least those who represent the Government, that the service suffered in its inception because of the time scale imposed on it.
It is also fair to mention that the new Crown prosecution service had the misfortune to come into being at a time of rapidly increasing growth in the demand for the services of lawyers. It was a time when the rewards of the private sector rose dramatically, as though it were caught in some thermal current. That made it imperative that the conditions of service, particularly of salary,

offered by the Crown prosecution service should be so attractive as to be able to compete at least reasonably effectively with the private sector.
Everybody agrees that it will never be possible for those in the public service to be rewarded on the scale commensurate with the highest rewards available in the private sector. There are compensating advantages in working for the Crown. Nevertheless, there comes a time when the disparity between the two levels of salary becomes so great that we fail to retain people of experience and to recruit people of sufficient quality. That assessment is not a science; it is an art, in which one gets better with greater experience.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester, East for what he said about the evidence of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Select Committee. One would not have expected anybody of the quality of Mr. Allan Green to display anything except complete professional honesty and candour, to use the hon. Gentleman's expression. It was notable from Mr. Green's evidence that he made no bones about the existence of those handicaps that I have endeavoured to describe.
The hon. Gentleman did not do justice to the optimistic cast of the DPP's evidence, particularly his insistence that real progress is being made.

Mr. Vaz: rose——

The Attorney-General: I have many questions to answer, and the hon. Gentleman spoke for quite a long time. However, I shall give way.

Mr. Vaz: I am most grateful to the Attorney-General.
On the question of DPP evidence, I accept that the Attorney-General thinks that there is no crisis of confidence. By saying that, in his view, the Crown prosecution service has not damaged the reputation of the criminal justice system he rejects the premise put forward in the police evidence. Does the Attorney-General stand by the DPP's statement that at all ranks in the police service there are officers who fail to co-operate fully with the Crown prosecution service?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman must not be mischievous. He knows perfectly well that I have a statutory relationship with the Director of Public Prosecutions—a relationship of superintendence. The director gave full evidence about the need for co-operation between the police service and the Crown prosecution service. As the professional head of the Crown prosecution service, he gave it as his view that in some areas there was less co-operation than was desirable. It is not right, especially in advance of my own evidence to the Select Committee, to ask me the kind of questions that the hon. Gentleman has been asking. I shall say only that the director, as professional head of the Crown prosecution service, is an independent public official in whose qualities—including the integrity, percipience and thoroughness of grasp that I think the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge the director has demonstrated—I have the highest confidence. Beyond that, I will not permit the hon. Gentleman to drive a wedge between myself and the police service, between myself and the Director of Public Prosecutions, or between myself and anybody else. I have come to the House to answer questions and to set forth


what the Government are doing as regards the Crown prosecution service and the other legal services to which the motion refers.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the Crown prosecution service and its staff—in particular, the staff in his own area of Leicestershire. There is much about which to be optimistic. Great progress has been made. I shall itemise some of the principal matters briefly, as other hon. Members wish to speak. Everyone knows that the service has had difficulty in recruiting enough lawyers. The director has therefore, with my full support, pursued a number of initiatives aimed at making the service more attractive to lawyers. In the last year there have been substantial improvements in pay at all grades, but in particular at Crown prosecutor and senior Crown prosecutor grades. Here the increases in the minimum and maximum salary have been 27·5 and 41 per cent. respectively—in London, 43 and 61 per cent. respectively. Those percentages relate to the initial salaries in 1986, but there were major increases during the last 12 months.
Salaries have been increased substantially all the way up the relevant scales. Senior Crown prosecutors can now earn salaries that, in some parts of the country, have led to the recruitment of equity partners from firms of solicitors in private practice. I am glad to say that there has been a vigorous and very effective recruitment advertising campaign. I dare say that hon. Members will be aware of it. The CPS is now sponsoring members of its own staff as law school students so that they may qualify as solicitors or barristers, and for all newly qualified lawyers the service now has in place a scheme by which either articles or Bar pupillage may he taken within the CPS. I take up what the hon. Member for Norwood said about earnings at the early stages of a career at the Bar, as opposed to the early stages of a career as a solicitor. Under the scheme, trainee lawyers, from the moment they undertake articles or Bar pupillage, will be paid a competitive salary—in round figures, between £9,000 and £13,000.
The CPS has already begun to benefit from this scheme, which is very much an investment for the future. The scheme should shortly begin to provide a reliable supply of thoroughly trained and well-motivated Crown prosecutors. So, there is no crisis here—and, if I may say so, I am in quite a good position to make that assertion. I see the Director of Public Prosecutions regularly and frequently to discuss the affairs of the CPS. I also see his senior staff at headquarters, and I travel the country. I have visited the service's offices up and down the country. I have been to most of its 31 areas—in some cases more than once—and my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has probably been to each of the rest. On such occasions I listen to the Crown prosecutors and to their support staff, to magistrates and judges, to the police, and to everybody else assembled, including, sometimes, local journalists.
The motion speaks of continued feuding between the CPS and the police—feuding that has given rise to a "crisis of confidence" between them. That is unreal. In addition, it does great injustice to two services that the motion describes as—here I agree with it; it is only seven words out of 80, but that is something—
essential parts of the criminal justice system".
All human institutions are mortal and, therefore, liable to human frailties, as even the House occasionally recognises. From time to time, at local level, even in public institutions, there may be a disagreement or a muddle or

a failure to do what should be done. Regrettably, this may lead to recriminations and, sometimes, to a public squabble if it gets into the courts. I do not contend that in the three years that have elapsed since the inception of the CPS this kind of thing has never happened in the relationship between the service and the police. I dare say that on occasions it has, but I hope and believe that these occasions have been rare. When they have occurred, no doubt the CPS has sometimes been at fault, and sometimes the police.
Equally, I think it quite likely that in some quarters within the police service there remains some lack of enthusiasm for the concept of a separate prosecution service. I think that that has become pretty rare, but I dare say that it still exists. When one considers the nature of the legislation that this Conservative Government introduced to give effect to the real principle of the report of the Philips Royal Commission—the separation of prosecution decisions from police functions—it is hardly surprising that, sometimes at any rate, there has been some resentment.

Mr. Vaz: The Attorney-General is being uncharacteristically unkind to me. The word "crisis" came not from me but from the chairman of the Police Federation in his evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs last week. It is the police, not I, who, in the very first paragraph of their evidence to the Select Committee, said that the operation of the Crown prosecution service has damaged the reputation of the criminal justice system. Is the Attorney-General saying that he rejects the police argument that the system is in crisis?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is again indulging his penchant for mischief. I do not answer for the evidence of the chief constable who signed the report that was submitted to the Select Committee on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers. It will be for the Select Committee to evaluate that evidence when it has heard all the evidence given to it and has considered its report. I am entitled to say that I have never received from any chief constable individually—nor, I believe, has the Director of Public Prosecutions—any evidence couched in those terms. That description contrasts vividly with the opinions expressed publicly by the immediate past chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers. I shall say nothing further on that score.
There have been occasions, as the Director of Public Prosecutions has admitted, when points of irritation have arisen. They turn on such matters as the failure to warn witnesses—that was the function of the police—or perhaps upon the failure to submit witness statements in typescript rather than in manuscript. If they are in manuscript they take three times as long to read and that has an effect on efficiency. I do not doubt that, from time to time, other matters have been the cause of friction between the newly created service and the police service, for which I have a high regard. Those matters are taken up at local liaison committee level and at senior, national liaison committee level.
Recently the Director of Public Prosecutions established an interdepartmental working group to take hold of such remaining points of irritation and friction as there are to see whether they can be argued out and


resolved between the police, the CPS and all the other agencies involved. I am confident that the result will be fruitful.
The hon. Member for Norwood drew attention to a number of cases where people have been cross at the outcome of a trial, the withdrawal of a prosecution, the reduction of a charge and so on. Good news gets crowded out, but bad news makes headlines. There is a common perception that the CPS undercharges, contrary to correct police recommendations to charge for a more serious offence. I cannot claim that that has never happened as I cannot know, but I suggest that there are occasions when the reverse occurs. However, we read nothing of them, or, if we do, they are not remembered. I shall give relevant examples of such cases, which I drew from my visit to Greater Manchester last week.
Three of those examples concern police recommendations for careless driving charges to be brought. I hope that the hon. Member for Leicester, East will listen, as this is important. I note that he appears to be otherwise engaged, no doubt signing an early-day motion on another matter. I should be grateful if I could just have his attention on this matter.
While the hon. Gentleman was otherwise engaged I referred to police recommendations, made in three separate cases, that a charge for careless driving should be brought. In each of those cases the CPS prosecuted for causing death by reckless driving. Convictions resulted in each of those cases and prison sentences were imposed in two of them. The fourth instance to which I want to refer occurred within the past two years and represents an even more stark instance of the CPS going for a more serious charge. In that case the police recommended that no action should be taken, but the CPS brought a charge for murder and a conviction for murder resulted.
I do not claim for one moment that those instances are representative, because, in the vast majority of cases, there is no difference between the opinion of the police and the CPS over which charge should be brought. In the light of the criticism that one reads of the CPS undercharging, I mention them because I believe that they deserve to be known and because I believe that the CPS deserves to have them known. We do not read about such cases.
The other day the Director of Public Prosecutions said that 5 million cases had been prosecuted by the CPS in the past three years and yet in the nature of things we read only about that minuscule fraction in which something is thought to have gone wrong. When it has gone wrong we are seldom able to learn whose fault it really was.
The hon. Member for Norwood referred to the prosecution of Kevin Taylor and said that if we decide to drop a case we should do so before £1 million has been spent. The hon. Gentleman was not referring to the merits of that case and neither am I, but I am entitled to refer to the public fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions has requested the chief constable of Greater Manchester to consider whether a police inquiry should be set up into certain aspects of the police evidence given in that case.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to an Office of Fair Trading case, but in fact it was brought by the Department of Trade and Industry. That case related to insider dealing and the prosecution was withdrawn. The hon. Gentleman quoted that case as an instance of failure on the part of the

CPS, but it was a DTI prosecution and, as it happens, that prosecution was withdrawn by reason of judicial ruling on public interest immunity that rendered further proceedings impossible.

Mr. Fraser: I must point out that I used the collective phrase "prosecution service". Is the Attorney-General saying that in the Coren and Greenwood case the same Secretary of State who initiated the prosecution then decided to give Crown immunity to some of the evidence?

The Attorney-General: No. In cases of that kind the Secretary of State is the prosecuting authority. The question of public interest immunity arose—there is a duty to claim such immunity, which cannot be waived. A judicial ruling on the scope of public interest immunity led to the result I have described.
A valid example of the performance of the CPS is the percentage of cases brought by the CPS that are dismissed in the magistrates court. In relation to the total number of defendants whose cases are finalised, the figure is 1·7 per cent. The number of acquittals in the Crown court in relation to the total number of defendants whose cases are finalised is 11·52 per cent. Taken together, the number of CPS cases acquitted or dismissed at the magistrates and Crown courts is equivalent to 2·44 per cent.
I ask the House to accept from me that talk of a feud between the CPS and the police and of a crisis in the affairs of the CPS is sensationalist and alarmist nonsense. I pay warm and grateful tribute to the way in which so many of the police, at all levels, have adapted to what was a revolutionary change. Equally I pay warm and grateful tribute to the dedicated and scrupulously independent staff of the CPS under the exemplary leadership of Mr. Allan Green QC.
The motion tabled by the hon. Member for Leicester, East goes on to deal with legal aid, the duty solicitor scheme, law centres and family courts. I am afraid I must deal with them briefly.
As to legal aid, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has set in hand a review that promises the biggest revision of legal aid since it was set up 45 years ago. That is in line with the reforming pattern of my noble and learned Friend's tenure of the Woolsack, which is without rival. The hon. Gentleman asked why that review is taking so long, but it is an extremely sensitive review that extends over civil, criminal and matrimonial legal aid. As and when matters are identified that need immediate treatment, steps will be taken to secure that that treatment is effected. That is a proper and sensible way to go about it.
The hon. Gentleman goes on about the numbers of people who are now eligible. It does not matter how many people are eligible when we do not know what proportion of the population is likely to engage in what type of litigation. What matters is that, based on sensible research, we know people's needs in relation to a particular type of litigation. That is being undertaken by the Legal Aid Board and our review.
The duty solicitor scheme came into being as part of the reforms—again introduced by a Conservative Government—connected with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In 1987, the Lord Chancellor commissioned research into advice and assistance at police stations, and the operation of the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme because he wanted to review the existing


procedures. He wanted advice about whether changes were necessary or desirable. The report was published in November. It highlights the number of sectors requiring further consideration, in particular the role of the police and the quality of advice given by solicitors. The Legal Aid Board, which administers the scheme, recently issued its own consultation paper. The board will report to the Lord Chancellor this spring, taking account of the matters raised in the Lord Chancellor's research.
These developments are all of a pattern with the programme of improvement in the quality of legal services generally. It is a pattern of vigorous inquiry, analysis and action. It extends to franchising, which is being vigorously examined to discover whether it may lead to greater efficiency.
Immense changes have taken place in the county courts. They are dealing with more cases and, in many instances, more efficiently than before. There are shortages of staff, but the Lord Chancellor has secured another £70 million in resources for the forthcoming financial year, another 350 staff will be recruited, and another 100 in connection with the ongoing implementation of the civil justice review.
Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will cheer up. I have good reason to——

Mr. Vaz: rose——

The Attorney-General: I shall not give way because time is getting on.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will cheer up because, although I have good reason to know of the difficulties in the county courts, there are major pluses to be recorded in their performance, and the prospects for next year are encouraging.
Law centres generally perform a valuable service. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Legal Aid Board has taken over responsibility for the seven legal aid centres that were previously funded by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Their future will be reviewed.
Family courts have a great deal of support. However, there has always been a good deal less particularity about what they actually do. Before setting up what is called a family court, it is essential to have reformed the law relating to family matters so that the law is uniform and coherent—it certainly is not at present. The Government get a considerable amount of criticism for not having introduced the family court, but we are well on the way to developing a family court.
The Children Act 1989 will be implemented progressively over the next two years. That brought together the law relating to children in an admirable way. It has attracted general admiration, but we are a long way yet from that uniform system of law relating to the family that is the essential pre-condition of a family court.
We are asked when our rolling programme will be completed. It is difficult to set a date for that when it partly depends on reports from the Law Commission that have yet to be delivered. The Law Commission is considering the law of divorce, and will report on it. We do not know when we shall get that report, but it will be extremely influential.
What I have to say about family law has been said in previous debates in the House on the Children Act. There is everything to be said for bringing the law together, making it uniform, coherent and thoroughly up to date. However, that must be done before we set up anything

approaching a family court. I hope that that day will come and I think that those who share my view have good reason to be expectant. I urge the hon. Gentleman to take heart, and reflect that hopes are being fulfilled and progress is being made.
In whatever part of the legal services touched on by this thoroughly depressing and depressed motion there is a record of research, review and reform unrivalled by any Government over 50 years. The subject was left untouched by successive Labour Governments in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Not everything can be made to fall neatly into place at once. To recognise that and proceed step by step is part of the art and responsibility of government. Conversely, to demand the impossible by yesterday is part of the art and irresponsibility of opposition, so charmingly and classically evinced in the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, East.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I shall start what is bound to be a short contribution by declaring my interest as a practising barrister, a recorder and secretary of the all-party barristers group.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am extremely grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. Does he share with me a sadness that only members of the legal profession have been called in this excellent debate? I was hoping to appear on behalf of the consumer.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman took twice as long as I had agreed he could take, and I have no comment to make on his contribution.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on initiating the debate and I shall make just two points. First, I agree with almost everything said by the Attorney-General about the Crown prosecution service. Public confidence in that service has been undermined. I can say that, but the Attorney-General cannot, even if he believes it. Public confidence has been quite deliberately undermined in some minority and restricted quarters of the police service. I hope that the police service will co-operate far more with the Crown prosecution service in future. The important thing about the CPS is that it is independent—and that means independent of the police as well as everyone else.
The way in which I regard the Crown prosecution service and make my assessment of it is by comparing it with what went on before. It seems that, despite considerable teething troubles, the Crown prosecution service has combined the best of the old county prosecuting solicitor services—some of which were extremely good—with an avoidance of the worst services in a system in which private solicitors, some of whom were very good and some very bad at prosecuting, conducted prosecutions.
Salaries at the bottom of the professional grades of the CPS are still too low, particularly in London. In a medium-sized west end firm, a newly qualified and admitted solicitor commands a salary of £23,000 or £24,000 a year. I hope that in order to achieve the necessary quality for dealing with what is often difficult work in London, the Attorney-General will try to ensure that salaries that are at least broadly competitive with not the highest new solicitor's salaries, but the medium range in central London, are available to young solicitors.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East mentioned plea bargaining in a way that suggested it was wrong. I have never been able to understand why there is so much criticism of plea bargaining, which goes on now and has always gone on. If it did not take place the criminal courts of this country would grind to a halt. I ask the Government to recognise that plea bargaining takes place and to encourage a much more open system for it.
We must all confess to having been involved in plea bargains in the past, so why cannot we do it in open court? It shortens cases and benefits the criminal justice system. There would be much less complaint about plea bargaining if it were done openly and above board. Not juries—if there is a jury trial—but the public at large could then see that plea bargaining plays a useful, efficient, necessary and real part in what happens in courts.
I should like to say much more in the debate, but time does not permit that. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) took up an unwarranted amount of time——

It being Seven o'clock, proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business).

Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that motion No. 3 on the Order Paper stands in my name and concerns an important subject: the pre-conditions necessary for a prime ministerial visit to South Africa. I know that, several times during the private notice question and the statement, you mentioned your concern about the time taken out of private Members' business. Would it be appropriate to discuss with the Procedure Committee whether, instead of giving us half a day, finishing automatically at 7 pm, it might be right to give private Members' motions a certain time limit? That would assist you in your job of protecting the interests of private Members and Back Benchers.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that some of the speeches were very long, I would have to agree. But I think that he is pushing his luck somewhat if he believes that his motion No. 3 would have been reached in a half-day debate. A number of hon. Members wanted to participate in the debate that has just concluded, and there would have been another debate on the Health Service after it, if time had permitted.

Orders of the Day — Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

REPLICATION OF PROPERTY SERVICES AGENCY FUNCTIONS

'The Secretary of State shall ensure that the functions hitherto exercised by the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers are not, directly or indirectly, replicated within any department of Government.'.—[Mr. O'Brien.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. William O'Brien: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause refers to the replication of Property Service Agency functions—the mini-PSAs. We went into this in some depth in Committee, and the Minister replied to some of our questions. On 16 January he referred to the Ministry of Defence carrying out work that is now done by the PSA, and accepted that the Ministry is now recruiting people to take over the work of the PSA. Between 700 and 800 people will be employed to do the work in the Department. The Minister said that MOD was the largest Department, so it would employ the largest number of people to do PSA work.
In Committee I also asked the Minister about other Departments, in particular about the Home Office and its prisons. I also mentioned the Department of Social Security's new offices to be built in various parts of the country, and the Department of Health's hospitals and clinics. I also referred to other Departments that would assume the responsibilities of the PSA. My question was:
Is the Minister now saying that all those Departments will have their accountants, consultants, engineers and supervisory staff?
The Minister replied:
That is right.
In other words, the Minister said that all other Departments will have their own staff to do the PSA's work. We have agreed on defence, but do I take it that the Cabinet Office, the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Employment, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Environment, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Health, the Home Office, the Northern Ireland Office, the Scottish Office, the Department of Social Security, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Transport, the Treasury and the Welsh Office will all start recruiting personnel to do the work upon which the Property Services Agency is now engaged? Will all those Departments take on accountants, consultants, engineers and supervisory staff, and will they be on the payroll of those Departments? If so, the estimated figure given us in Committee—1,000 people—must be far short of the true number who will be employed in the various Departments. May we have all the details and information?
If what the Minister told us in Committee was factual, it is obvious that value for money is important. So the


Minister must explain where the Government stand in relation to value for money in the privatisation of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers.
The Minister has not dealt with the Wardale inquiry, in Committee or in the House. He has commissioned no real inquiry to prove that the privatisation of the PSA is on the right lines and will benefit the Government. There has been no exercise to show that the Government's approach to the privatisation of the PSA is right. The Wardale inquiry, which was never acted or reported on in detail, identified the principal problems in the PSA. It said that the fundamental problem related to management's reluctance to acknowledge that problems existed, and to its lack of vigour in handling them once they had been identified.
People involved in the inquiry believe that this situation shows a degree of complacency by the management. That complacency is reflected in its attitude towards dishonesty and fraud, and we raised those issues in Committee. We wanted an assurance that that situation would not be mirrored in all the Departments that I referred to in my earlier remarks.
The Wardale inquiry said—the Minister has made this point on more than one occasion—that the purpose of untying the various Departments from the PSA was to allow them to have more financial control over their own affairs. One has to ask whether the various Departments understand the concept of financial control sufficiently when it comes to the actions and functions of the Property Services Agency. Unless there has been extensive training and consideration of the problems of financial control, there will be mismanagement when the PSA is privatised, as the Wardale inquiry pointed out.
If management control techniques are not adequate within the various Departments when the PSA is untied from them, it will be difficult to detect irregularities, unless there is to he some sort of in-depth study of problems that may develop in the various Departments which I listed. In Committee we wanted more information, and we mentioned the serious issue that I have referred to tonight. In Committee the Minister said, after he had been questioned:
I am not sure that we can take the discussion much further, Sir Giles"—
he was the Chairman.
We have had a good debate on clause 1 and I hope that the Committee will agree to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D. 16 January 1990; c. 121–22.]
We had not had sufficient discussion. We needed to examine and to inquire about a great deal more. The Minister did not come up with the answers to questions that were put to him. Therefore, I shall put further questions to him tonight.
Is it proposed that all Departments, including the Cabinet Office, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office, will have their own corps of people to do the work that the PSA and the Crown Suppliers carried out?
The Minister said that a lot of the work would be let out to contract but, as we mentioned to the Minister in Committee, who will supervise the contracts and tenders? Who will check the work that is carried out? We have had no answers to those questions, and I hope the Minister will answer them tonight.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Having listened to the hon. Gentleman's argument, I am uncertain whether he feels that it would be better if fewer or more

people were employed on those tasks. I am equally confused by the use of the word "replicated" in the new clause. Does that mean reproduce or diminish? It is not a word that I know, and I think that the Opposition should state whether they are in favour of more or fewer civil servants to do this work.

Mr. O'Brien: I have to excuse the hon. and learned Member for not being aware of what has happened previously. We are saying that there is little cause for him and for his colleagues to support the Bill, because the present organisation—the PSA—meets all the demands of the various Departments, which will now have to recruit staff. When we say that we do not want those Departments to replicate the PSA, we mean that we do not want mini-PSAs in every Department because we consider that that would be uneconomic. It is not value for money, and would not result in good management practice.
I ask the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) the same question that I asked the Minister. The PSA has developed various manuals on the work that it does for various Departments. Security is at the top of its list. The PSA has a manual on security in various Departments, which has been built up during years of experience—for the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office, the Foreign Office, the Cabinet Office and the Departments of Social Security and Health. Under the new system, where will the manual go? The Minister did not answer that question in Committee. I asked him again tonight where will the centrally-owned documents which are now in the hands of the PSA be held in future? At one time, the Minister suggested that they could be held by the property holdings department, which would still be part of his Department. If that is so, why are we here? That means that we will have the same situation as we have at present. The manual will go round from Department to Department and there will be no security. That is the situation into which the Minister is leading the House. If our clause is not accepted, there will be a mishmash of security provisions throughout the various Departments.
There is also the question of supervision to ensure that the projects demanded by the various Departments are in accordance with their specifications. Each Department will have to ensure that and will have to recruit the best personnel to carry out the work. There will be a small group of people in a Department to undertake work, whereas, at the moment, the PSA supervises projects in all Departments and can recruit the best staff. The PSA has the knowledge to carry out the work, and the Minister would be wise to leave things as they are. If that is not acceptable, I ask for the assurance that we are seeking in new clause 1—that there will be no duplication of work. Or will Conservative Members join me and my colleagues to ensure that new clause 1 stands part of the Bill? That would be in the best interests of the House and would show that we are concerned about value for money. The report of the Wardale inquiry made it abundantly clear that there must be efficient management and financial control. If there is not, there cannot be protection against dishonesty and fraud. We are trying to protect the House and to make sure that we get value for money.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell the House exactly what will happen after privatisation if replication is allowed? I want


to be sure that my constituents have the right after privatisation to be allowed to compete properly and fairly without having set against them an in-house programme and all the problems of single action tenders that can arise through Departments giving the jobs to their own boys. I should like to be certain that there will be open and fair competition after privatisation and that nothing will be held back. I hope that the Minister can convince the House about that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I certainly hope that I can convince my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) and the House on that important point. It would be pointless for each Department to set up its own in-house works organisation, and that is not the Government's purpose in proceeding towards the untying of Departments. The policy of untying Departments for the PSA predates the Bill and any proposals for privatisation. That is why the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) is mistaken in his approach. The new clause would prevent the functions currently undertaken by the PSA and the Crown Suppliers being undertaken by other Departments. Indeed, matters would go further because the new clause would prevent the devolution of procurement responsibilities to Departments, and that is well outside the scope of the Bill.
Untying Departments from the PSA will put financial responsibility where it should be—with the user Departments. It will enable Departments to obtain value for money through their own purchasing decisions instead of having to rely on a central Department to make the decisions for them. That is one of the fundamental principles of the financial management initiative that predates the Bill.

Mr. O'Brien: I should like to clarify what the Minister means. Does he think that when the Home Office wants to develop or build a new prison the design work should be left to the PSA and not to the client Department, which is the Home Office? Is the Minister saying that the Home Office will not have an input into the design or building of a new prison but that it will be left to the PSA? Will the same principles apply to the building of a National Health Service hospital? Does the Minister agree that it is for the client Department to instruct the PSA, which then presents designs for which the client can choose? Is not that the way that it works?

Mr. Chope: That is indeed the way in which the system largely works at the moment. Prior to untying, Departments had no choice but to go to the PSA. They now have the opportunity to go to other organisations. That is why the document issued by the Ministry of Defence, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, praises the essence of the financial management initiative about untying. It says that untying from the PSA will bring greater choice. That is what it is all about.
The financial management initiative aims to obtain value for money through a clearer definition of responsibilities and the benefits of competition. To carry out those responsibilities effectively, each Department will need some expertise to know when or even how to

commission consultant advice. Departments will need to be intelligent customers for professional services. That is the essence of what is proposed.
It might be helpful to the House if I refer briefly to an extract from the annual report of the central unit on purchasing. It states:
Arrangements were made to transfer financial responsibility from PSA to departments (effective from April 1989) for part 1 capital works and to simultaneously untie departments from the requirement to employ PSA. Maintenance and minor works would follow a similar path in April 1990. CUP has been directly involved in three areas:

—development of ownership responsibilities in owning departments;
—development of a more commercial approach to project management in PSA, together with appropriate organisational and procedural changes both in PSA and the owner departments;
—providing specific support and professional input to individual projects.
Major departments have adopted the concept of a single point responsibility for each capital project and many have initiated organisational changes…In some departments with large works programme, technical support organisations are being developed to assist the project sponsor. These units will provide the technical expertise necessary to inform the sponsor's decisions. This is a vital role which will significantly improve the project appraisal and management during all stages of the project.
Fewer people are involved in that than are presently involved in the PSA. It is interesting to note that the central unit on purchasing concludes that, although it is too early to have a full assessment of the effects of untying,
it is already clear that project sponsors are benefiting from a more responsive and flexible PSA which, coupled with greater commercialism, should result in a significant overall improvement in project performance.
That is the Government's aim. I hope that the House will reject the new clause.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: A terrible experience for Scotland was the PSA construction of new court buildings. The PSA was advised by the Scottish courts administration. The buildings are all impracticable, extravagant and extraordinarily badly designed. If they had been subject to commercial competition, it is impossible to believe that buildings that touch upon the lives of so many people could either have been so expensively built or so badly designed.

Mr. Chope: I am disappointed to hear what my hon. and learned Friend says. I visited some of the court projects in Scotland and I know that the client, the Scottish Office department responsible for courts in Scotland, is much impressed by the work that the Property Services Agency has carried out. I looked at the new sheriff court in Glasgow. Although the design of the building may not be to everybody's taste and perhaps not to the taste of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), he cannot disagree that the building is mammoth and that it is effective for the function that it has to perform.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am amazed that the Minister chose Glasgow sheriff court as the building on which to model the excellence of the PSA. A more impracticable building could not be discovered. It was vastly over budget, 90 per cent. of the space is unused, and to reach the only consultation room the solicitor is required to pass between the cages in which prisoners awaiting trial are kept. It takes half an hour to get from the court to visit a


client. There are 15 armchairs in the dock but only two places for counsel who represent the people in the dock. If that is good design, God help us.

Mr. Chope: I am sorry that that court's design does not appeal to my hon. and learned Friend, who has experience of using it
The best court building that the PSA has commissioned in recent years is the court building in Truro, which has won probably half a dozen design awards. It is regarded as one of the best buildings built last year. I was lucky enough to be present when its foundation stone was laid and at its opening. Everybody is much impressed by it. Many other court buildings for which the PSA has been responsible have received similar accolades from the architectural profession.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Given what I said in Committee, the Minister may be surprised that on Report I rise to agree with him strongly. As a Scottish Member of Parliament, I do not take lightly what was said by someone who is not only a Back-Bench Member of Parliament but chairman of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland, an appointment that is made by the Government. This is not a jocular matter, because by implication some serious charges have been made against some important people, whose reputation may be affected. At his convenience, will the Minister, or the Secretary of State, write to me commenting on the intervention made by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn)? This is a grave issue.

Mr. Chope: I do not think that I could go as far as that——

Mr. Dalyell: Why?

Mr. Chope: Because architecture is a subjective assessment of buildings. Architects disagree about the merits of a particular building. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross holds a different view about the sheriff court in Glasgow from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Mr. Clive Soley: I congratulate the Minister on defending the architecture and the amount and quality of work done on those court buildings. If the PSA is so good, and I agree that it is, why are the Government privatising it?

Mr. Chope: The answer is quite straightforward: because the PSA is so good, it is important that its expertise is available in a wider market.

Mr. Soley: Is not the danger that the PSA will be lost? We know that it did extremely well before the Government began to run it down and turn it into a second-class service. Therefore, its value is not as high as it would have been a few years ago. Its past considerable achievements could be maintained if the Government were prepared to back it.

Mr. Chope: The facts show that the quality of work that the PSA is commissioning and doing is improving year after year. The work that has been done at Kew gardens is an example of the high esteem in which the PSA is held. The restoration of Fort George is a magnificent example of

the PSA at its best. I am sure that it will have an enormous amount to offer the private sector, and I hope that it will do so not only domestically but internationally.

Mr. Richard Holt: Before we are carried away on a tide of euphoria, I hope that hon. Members will recall the report that the Select Committee on the Environment made after it had interviewed and examined the PSA. In support of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), may I say that the Glasgow sheriff court was completed by the PSA, but the new senior judge wanted to enter court not from the left but from the right, so it had to start all over again. Hon. Members should consider the PSA's record on finishing jobs on time, but they should not consider its record on finishing work within the cost yardstick, otherwise they will have a heart attack.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Sometimes delays are incurred because, for example, a member of the judiciary disagrees about the design of a building. Sometimes those delays are blamed unfairly on the PSA, when truly the responsibility lies with the client. That is why the essence of the financial management initiative is to ensure that responsibility for such delay lies where it truly should—with the client.
We have explored the new clause conscientiously and thoroughly, and I hope that the House will reject it.

Mr. Richard Livsey: The point of the new clause is to avoid empire building within Departments. I am sure that Departments will find reasons for employing experts in security, building design or other matters.
The new clause aims to avoid duplication of functions that are covered by the PSA at present. I agree with the Minister about effective and efficient administration, but the danger is that duplication will affect the purpose of the Bill. The new clause has much to commend it in that respect.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I feel that I should intervene, given the remarks made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), to which I do not object. I am chairman of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland, and I hope that I was chosen for that position because I am sensitive to the appearance of buildings and their practicality and cost.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that Glasgow sheriff court is an example of the excellence of the Property Services Agency. In my opinion, it is a singular example of the fallacy of the monopoly of the PSA and of the excellence of the purpose of the Bill.
Glasgow sheriff court rivals in its appearance Goebbels' propaganda ministry in East Berlin, which still stands. It is brutal and hideous. Originally, it was planned to be one third higher than it is, but because the extravagance of its absurdity prevented it from being practical it was required to be one third lower. It is a building of great impracticality, and 90 per cent. of its usable space is unused. It is ill-designed, greatly extravagant and preposterous. Without challenge—the PSA cannot be subject to challenge—the agency decided that the bench in the court should be 40 to 50 ft long. The sheriff therefore cannot speak to the shorthand writer, who is too far away. The witness box is such that the jury cannot observe the witness, and the presiding judge is lower, and therefore


appears lower in status, than those appearing in court. There are 15 swivelling armchairs in the docks of the jury courts. I presume that the courts are expected to house 15 accused people, but the table at which their representatives sit has room for only two people on each side. Presumably, on the prosecution side will be the procurator fiscal and his assistant, and on the defence side one advocate and one solicitor.
The building is remarkably impractical. It has certain modern, tasteless features. The great arms of Glasgow has been smashed into bits so that it is incomprehensible and cast in granite over the door. I imagine that the hall is twice the length of the Chamber—for what purpose, I cannot imagine. The building is impractical. To go to the cells, one must go on a long trail, and there is no system of communication between the courts and the cells. At the cells, there is a huge area where the police can undertake their activities and it is unlike any other court that I have seen. However, there is almost no provision in the cell area for solicitors or lawyers to interview their clients. I question whether the Property Services Agency can design courts.

Mr. O'Brien: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the court's design and layout were totally the PSA's responsibility and the client department was not involved? Does he believe that the client department does not become involved in that work?

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: No, but unfortunately that makes it worse. The Scottish courts administration is the adult child of the PSA. There are extraordinarily badly designed courts in Airdrie, Greenock and Glasgow. Look at what the PSA and the Scottish courts administration propose for the High Court in Glasgow, one of the great buildings of the city. They propose a ruinous and impractical scheme, which was opposed by everyone else, as was the Glasgow sheriff court which practises therein. Therefore, nothing could be better than challenging the PSA's dominance.
I have had the benefit, or otherwise, of being a Minister. On the first day I moved into my small office, I was visited by six people from the PSA—Mr. Curtain, Mr. Carpet, Mr. Desk, Mr. Chair, Mr. Picture and Mr. Someone Else—who told me that they would transform my office at a cost of £6,600. When the PSA offered to move the Crown Office into the royal high school building in Edinburgh, it did the same, except this time at a cost of £160,000. Monopolies of this kind that fall to Ministers and Government agencies should be challenged by those who have more common sense and more idea of economy and practicalities. If the Minister wants to come with us to Glasgow sheriff court, either as a client or as a colleague, I shall show him the absurdity of the work carried out by the PSA.

Mr. Dalyell: I have not yet been to Glasgow sheriff court, but I am not sure that I want to go as either the client or the colleague of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). I have, however, been to Fort George, where the work was done brilliantly. Last week, I was at Kew gardens for the speech by the Prince of Wales on rain forests-a matter close to the heart of the Secretary of State. The experts, whom we both

know, were full of praise for the PSA's careful work to take account of special needs. The PSA did a brilliant job there.

Mr. O'Brien: I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) if he believes that, a private
consultant or architect designed a court house, there would not be changes to the design. Changes are made whether a building is designed by the PSA or by a private company or architect. If a judge says that he wants to enter the court room from the right, that will affect the PSA and the private consultant. If that is the Bill's basis, there are no grounds for pursuing it, because nothing will change.

Mr. Holt: Paragraph 72 of the Environment Select Committee's report states:
The original concept of an all-embracing agency has failed the test of experience. The PSA was established to provide a total service to Departments, but its functions have gradually been chipped away by its client Departments. It has been found to be too impotent and too cumbersome, with lines of communications that are far too long.
That damning paragraph explains why we need to privatise the PSA.

Mr. O'Brien: The Minister referred to project performance as one reason for giving the various functions to the client Departments. How does one measure project performance unless there is someone in each Department measuring it? The Select Committee's report did not refer to project performance. Research is needed to determine what the Minister means by measuring project performance. He paid credit to the Truro court house. If such expertise is available, why do the Government want to lose it? The Minister said that he would like the PSA to move into a wider market. Why are we not discussing a provision to allow that to happen, instead of destroying it?

Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Government. I should like to make it absolutely clear that the Select Committee's report was a unanimous report by all parties.

Mr. O'Brien: There is no reference in the report to the Minister's point about project performance. I should be interested to learn how the Minister will ensure that project performance is measured in every Department that will benefit from the Bill, as they will all have their own mini-PSAs.
We should discuss how to give those people with expertise in the PSA and the Crown Suppliers more opportunities to work in the private sector. Because they are dictated to by the Department of the Environment, they are prevented from undertaking other work, just as happens with local authority public works departments. If the aim is to provide a wider market for the expertise of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers, that could be provided without this legislation.
The Minister has not given us a good reason why we should not pursue the new clause. I know that we have only limited time in which to debate the new clause and amendments, and the Third Reading, and I do not intend to divide the House now; we intend, however, to divide it on Third Reading.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 1

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY SERVICES AGENCY AND CROWN SUPPLIERS

Mr. John McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 21, at end insert ', with the exception of the Security Group of the Property Services Agency and any property, rights or liabilities related to security work.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this we may take amendment No. 4, in clause 6, page 3, leave out line 46.

Mr. McFall: In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked the Minister what advice he had on security, and whether it was properly discussed with those responsible. When he asked whether the matter had been referred to either the secretariat or the Joint Intelligence Committee, the Minister failed to answer. If he had said that it was subject to proper discussion, we would not now be discussing the amendment. I suspect that there is now a bigger tale to be told.
We also asked in Committee whether the Minister had raised the matter with the Ministry of Defence. He replied that the Secretary of State for Defence, being a member of the Cabinet, agreed with the decisions that had been made, but again he did not say what the security personnel thought about the matter. As a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I had an opportunity to raise the point with MOD officials, who replied—in a manner that was both sophisticated and as bland as the Minister's—that they had their concerns, but that those concerns would be discussed later. In our view, they have not been resolved because the Minister has not turned his attention to them.
I can give an example. The Select Committee discussed the physical security of military installations. Having engaged in public discussions with the MOD over the past few weeks, we have discovered that when security is handed over to private firms they pay poverty wages. We have also discovered massive loopholes. Last week, for instance, I asked the Assistant Under-Secretary whether it was possible for someone to deceive the authorities by assuming a different name, and to get into a military installation. The reply was that it was eminently possible. When I asked the MOD police, I received the same answer. That loophole must be closed.
I fear that the Minister has paid even less attention to the Bill's security implications than the MOD has paid to the physical security of military installations, and that the consequences of his lack of rigour may be severe. He has responded inadequately not only to Opposition Members, but to his hon. Friends. In Committee, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said that he hoped that the Minister would take on board the concern felt by many hon. Members; again, the Minister would give no details.
The Minister himself said in Committee that the majority of the PSA's work was sensitive in security terms, some of it extremely sensitive: for example, more than two thirds of its new construction and maintenance programme is for the MOD. He cited the Clyde submarine base in my constituency, where 110 major projects are currently under way. I take his point that much of the work is untied at present, and that most of those 110

contracts will be carried out by private firms. I am concerned about the maintenance jobs. In the case of the submarine base, 200 jobs are involved. There are 90 industrial and 36 technical staff. It is important for staff to have a deep knowledge of the workings of such plants, which are enormously complex technically, and such knowledge can be gained only through historical familiarity with them.
I told the Minister that people who knew had told me that it would take a new operator at least 12 to 15 months to gain hands-on experience of the plant—to build up expertise on a learning curve. How can that happen if the contracts are subject to competitive tender, as the Minister says that they will be? The logic of privatisation is that the PSA must compete for work; if it is not to compete, what is the use of privatisation? If work is always given to the PSA for security reasons, I suggest that Faslane and other such installations should not be included in the privatisation proposals.
In Committee, the Minister was asked whether he had undertaken a risk assessment, taking account of possible management failure. The answer was no. In view of that, I consider it not only reckless but dangerous to proceed with the privatisation programme. The leaked report by the PSA's regional directors predicts a 32 per cent. cut in business contracts and a possible loss of 200 jobs. Still worse, the loss of either Rosyth or Faslane would have a major impact on the PSA's viability. I ask the Minister to consider not only the financial but the security implications.
It would be fine if the Minister's case was consistent, but the Committee knew from the outset that it was not. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) asked a question which bears repetition: if the Secretary of State's car and the design and security of Minister's homes are to be under the control of the PSA or a suitable Government Department, how can it be acceptable to transfer other personnel who face the threat of the paramilitary? I would like the Minister to answer that question now so that I can take the answer back to the people who work in the military installations in my constituency. What is the difference between the security implications for a Minister or his home, and the implications for highly sensitive military bases? By his failure to answer that question, the Minister underlines both the paucity and the danger of his proposals.
Another inconsistency has developed since the Committee has been in business. For reasons well known to all of us, in some parts of the United Kingdom services will not be put out to competitive tender. The Minister denies that at his peril. If that is acceptable, why is it not acceptable for services involving military installations and security bases not to be put out at all? The Minister must explain that inconsistency tonight. I have to tell my constituents that PSA work services in certain parts of the United Kingdom will not go out to tender. However, they will go out at Faslane and at the Clyde submarine base because the Minister does not believe that the Clyde submarine base is a sufficiently high security service for it not to go out to tender. That is the only conclusion that I can draw from the Government's inconsistency. I hope that the Minister can at least smooth out that manifest inconsistency.
The Minister has shown that he cares little for the 200 or 300 jobs that will be lost in Scotland or for the 1,000 jobs that will be lost throughout the United Kingdom. I


can conclude only that by privatising the PSA the Minister may save some money. However, will he save lives at the bases that are affected? The Minister is being reckless by pursuing the privatisation proposal. He has not fully thought out the proposal and he does not have the full agreement of the security forces. He is jeopardising the lives of the service personnel in our United Kingdom bases. He should be ashamed about that, and that is why we will press the amendment.

8 pm

Mr. Livsey: The amendment is very important because the privatisation of the PSA will have considerable security implications. The PSA designs and maintains sensitive security sites such as RAF Fylingdales, GCHQ and, as has already been stated, the nuclear submarine base at Faslane. Therefore, PSA staff are vetted for those purposes and are also subjected to the Official Secrets Act 1911. The PSA also security vets every contractor working on a Government site and nearly one employee in 10 is rejected by that vetting. Vetting is expensive and time consuming and the whole procedure may be put in jeopardy because of the thrust towards privatisation in which profit may overtake security implications.
The American and West German Governments have already informed our Government that they will work only through British civil servants for design and maintenance on their military sites for which the PSA works. I understand that there are 500 civil servants in Germany looking after the building and maintenance of military installations. If the West German Government believe that they should remain in place because of the security implications, that is an important consideration. The West German and American Governments oppose privatisation. Will the Minister tell us what feedback he has had in his discussions with those Governments?
Will the Minister name any other countries in which the functions that we are discussing tonight are privatised? Other countries are not prepared to privatise such work. Ministers have also decided that security work on Cabinet Ministers' homes and their own homes will not be privatised while work on military and married quarters will be.
Recent tragic events have shown that the homes of military personnel are as vulnerable to terrorist attack as ministerial residences. If the privatisation of the PSA poses no security threat, why are Ministers' residences excluded from the privatisation plans? There is an inconsistency there which the Minister must answer. That is one of the reasons why my party will oppose the Bill tonight. We have not been satisfied by any of the assurances that the Minister has given about security.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The question of security has taxed the patience of this House for many years. Lapses of security have always created a sense of anger and sometimes frustration when we have not been able to get explanations from the Government—and by Government I mean Governments of all political persuasions. Security is a subject which in some form touches us all. However, whenever we show an interest in how to deal with it and how to put our views to the

authorities about how security could be enhanced and ringfenced to provide the highest levels of public confidence, we are treated at arm's length.
The Bill is small, but it affects many people. When we discussed new clause 1 we were not satisfied that certain things such as empire building in the Departments—under the heading of replication—would not occur. Also we have heard nothing that persuades us of the case for privatisation.
The Government may have an argument on privatisation and security. They may be able to say that large areas of private enterprise deal with sensitive security matters where there are no problems. The Government may be justified in claiming in those cases that there are satisfactorily ringfenced and regulated accountability conditions so there is a higher level of support for work to be placed in the private sector than in the public sector. Very often there are unfortunate lapses in the public sector. However, that is not a good argument.
My colleagues have already said that an outstanding disparity follows the unfortunate reasoning behind the privatisation proposal. Why will we exclude Ministers' houses from the proposal? Why should it be a logical conclusion that what is good for Ministers' houses is not good enough for other properties? In many cases people are more in the front line of danger than Ministers.
I remember being very worried when I was a young officer in the last war. Over the years since then I have pondered about how silly it is for us to send young boys of only 17½ and 18 to Ireland. They do not even know where the enemy is. That is an example of people at the sharp end of the problem who are in danger.
I do not want to underestimate the importance of the work of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, because his is a very dangerous job. However, he is guarded every moment of the day. Therefore, the Bill falls short. We are treating Ministers differently. That cannot be logical.

Mr. Chope: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, when he describes Ministers, he should also refer to former Ministers, some of whom are his colleagues?

Mr. Leadbitter: Some of them are so long past that I often have a sneaking suspicion that they enjoy their security too much to allow it to wither away. Nevertheless, one does not want to be too critical about dangerous situations. We must act responsibly.
Is there a case for privatisation? To put it another way, when we have satisfactory security in defence programmes throughout the United Kingdom, will we put security at risk if we privatise security at defence installations? That is a very good question, and the Minister should be able to answer it. The issue is not party political. Hon. Members have a common interest. We want to know whether, although there is a case for responding reasonably to high standards of security in the private sector, there is a case for widening it and, therefore, possibly weakening it.
There has been ample time for consultation. What representations has the Minister received from security officers and from representatives of the PSA? Have they indicated any concern, and has the Minister responded to them? Hon. Members may be more confident if the Minister is able to tell the House that consultations have


satisfied him and, therefore, that they should satisfy us. I suspect that he will not be able to tell us that with any confidence.

Mr. Soley: This has been an important debate. Hon. Members may recall that this subject was important also on Second Reading and in Committee. As I said on Second Reading, the Government have not thought through the consequences of their actions in privatising the PSA and the Crown Suppliers. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) has moved amendment No. 2 dealing with security. Amendment No. 4 would exclude Northern Ireland from the scope of the Bill. On Second Reading, I said that the Bill would allow paramilitaries operating out of Northern Ireland to have greater opportunities for terrorism in this country and in Northern Ireland and for raising money in Northern Ireland.
One of the best speeches in Committee was made by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) on behalf of the SDLP in Northern Ireland. He pointed out what and other Committee Members have known for all too long, which is that paramilitary groups on both sides—Unionist and Republican—obtain significant sums of money from threats and extortion. The most vulnerable groups include the private building sector and related organisations. The hon. Member for South Down pointed out that it is well known in the Province that 20 per cent. is usually added to the cost of a contract, and that sum is passed on to paramilitary groups.
8.15 pm
If hon. Members are satisfied with that, it would be a shame. They cannot be satisfied. If we include Northern Ireland in the scope of the Bill, and we privatise several organisations, there will be the real danger that funding for paramilitary groups will be increased. I put it no higher than that. I do not expect the Government to say how they have adequately coped with that. However, on Second Reading, it was clear that they had not thought about the consequences. In Committee, it was clear that the Minister did not know all the answers. Perhaps one should not expect him to do so, because the information is particularly sensitive, but I have no reason to believe that adequate thought has been given to how to proceed with the privatisation.
When a service in Northern Ireland is privatised, company directors are threatened that, if they take on Crown contracts, they or their work force may be shot. That is precisely what happens there—they are shot. Several people have been shot in the past few months. If the Government have got this wrong, it is literally a fatal warning to people in Northern Ireland. I would much prefer that this matter is kept out of the Bill so that we do not create that possibility.
If we are satisfied with present security—the Government are always telling us that they are doing everything possible to improve and maintain security—surely we should not be changing the practice. If they think that this measure will improve security, surely they can say so. They have not said whether it will improve security or make it worse. The most that we have had is an indication that, somehow or other, the measure will not do an) damage. It is deeply disturbing that the Government's policy is not well thought out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton, who was ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), referred to Ministers' cars and homes. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton and I challenged the Minister on the privatisation of the car driving service and the security of people's homes and the exclusion of Ministers' cars and homes. The Minister said:
The hon. Member for Linlithgow knows that a review was carried out in 1988 after the announcement of our intention to privatise the Crown Suppliers. That review concluded that the ministerial car service and some of the Crown Supplier's work on security furniture and equipment should be retained within Government. The reason in the first case was the nature of the terrorist threat to Ministers. In the second case, security considerations argued against delegating to a private firm either the design and development work of the Crown Suppliers security branch or their work in choosing and approving manufacturers.
The House should note those final words:
choosing and approving manufacturers.
The Minister has just intervened to respond to the argument about why Ministers' cars and their home security were excluded from the provisions. His defence was, incredibly, that it was all right because it applied to Ministers of both parties, from this Government and from previous Governments. That is unacceptable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton said, that will not apply to service men's families or homes or to a number of senior civil servants who are at least as much at risk—and in some cases more at risk—from terrorists than Ministers. According to the Minister in Committee, the security is necessary for Ministers, so why is it not also necessary for senior civil servants and the families of service personnel, who are at least as much at risk?
I repeat what I said on Second Reading. The Labour party is not prepared to accept a second class of security for civil servants or for service men or their families compared with that offered to Ministers, whether they are Labour or Tory Ministers, past or present. That argument is unacceptable to us and it should be unacceptable to all hon. Members.
The first time that a senior civil servant or a member of the armed forces or one of their families is killed or seriously injured as a result of a second-class service., the responsibility will be on those who have supported the Government on this Bill. The position is that serious. That is why the Opposition are so opposed to the Bill and that is why we are now seeking to exclude Northern Ireland from the provisions and exclude the security group of the Property Services Agency and its related design facilities.

Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend must convey distinctly and clearly that the lesson is that if the Government cannot show that their proposals do not put security at risk, they should not put them into practice.

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Sadly, he did not serve on the Standing Committee with us; his expertise and knowledge would have been useful. The tragedy is that, over and over again, the most that the Minister has been able to tell us is that he does not think that there is a risk. That is not sufficient. As I have already said, if the Government were to suggest that by keeping Northern Ireland on the face of the Bill—in other words, including privatisation provisions for Northern Ireland—security in Northern Ireland would be improved, it is probable that we should have to accept that as the Government's judgment because, although we cannot ask


for evidence on the Floor of the House, at least we would have something to work on. However, the Government will not say that. They simply say that, in their judgment, the provisions will not make security any worse.
As I have already said, the hon. Member for South Down, who lives in Northern Ireland and knows the scene there and who put the case so forcefully and so well in Committee, has not yet had the response that he deserves to his serious speech.
Further to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool, the issue of Ministers' cars and homes is the clinching argument. If, according to the Minister's own words, this level of security is so necessary for Ministers of the Crown, why is it not necessary for civil servants or for armed service men and their families? Either security for Ministers is better, in which case we should bring everyone's security up to that level, or it is worse, in which case we should improve security for Ministers. The Minister's statement in Committee was clear. He said specifically that the facility should not be privatised for security reasons. Therefore, one assumes that that is because the PSA offers a higher standard than could be achieved in the private sector. If that is the argument—and it must be the only argument unless the Minister has any other suggestions—its logic should also apply to senior civil servants and to members of the armed forces and their families. There should not be a second-class standard or second-class delivery of security services for such people. That is the force of our argument and we should believe that it is a powerful argument.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton made some extremely important comments. When considering the design of military bases in this country, we must also consider not only what happens on the base itself, but the perimeter security and everything that goes with that in terms of the people who enter the base to work on it. If my memory serves me right, it was the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) who said in Committee that it was quite normal for outside contractors to go on to United States or German bases to provide, for example, fast-food outlets. We know that. But I shall refer again to his exact words in Committee. Although I have already quoted this passage, I emphasise the words at the end. The Minister referred to
the design and development work of the Crown Suppliers security branch or their work in choosing and approving manufacturers."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 11 January 1990; c. 84.]
What is going to happen when a company is chosen to do some work at Faslane, Aldermaston or one of the other bases in this country? At the moment the PSA has some say about which company should carry out the work and takes into account security factors and the people who work for the company, to the extent that one in 10 of all employees are excluded on security grounds. Although we are told that that system will end, the Government's secret argument is, "Ah but, it will not disappear because we shall transfer it to the relevant Department. It could be transferred to, for example, the Ministry of Defence."
Although we are also told that there will not be any mini-PSAs, in fact, that is exactly what we shall have. Presumably, the Ministry of Defence, the Northern Ireland Office, the Home Office, the Department of the Environment and a number of other key Ministries will all

have their own mini-PSAs for security work. The alternative is to keep the whole thing as a national body, in which case why are we privatising it? Why do the Government not say, "We accept the two amendments, one excluding Northern Ireland and the other excluding the security group and its related work"? I can well understand that the Minister may keep the security group out of the privatisation, but I am concerned about the related security work.
Let us consider the lighting that is necessary on the perimeters of secure establishments. The design, location and the lighting itself are the work of the PSA and can be crucial. Experimental work is carried out into the anti-blast properties of the materials that are used in the homes of, for example, service men's families, senior civil servants, Ministers and at military installations in general. That work is not only controlled and supervised by the PSA, but carried out by the PSA itself in many instances. However, much of the work is now to be carried out either by in-house PSA in the relevant Ministry or by a private contractor.
The problem does not stop there. Let us consider Broadmoor and Britain's prisons. Again, the work of the PSA is essential to security. That is why I want to make it clear that, leaving aside the amendment covering Northern Ireland, we are raising the full range of security issues that are affected, in relation not only to terrorism or defence, but to all the secure establishments that are necessary in our society.
I repeat for the third or fourth time that the Opposition do not expect the Minister to give us details of the security thinking or of the discussions that have taken place. However, if the Minister cannot explain his comments when he said that for security reasons it is necessary not to privatise Ministers' cars and the design, selection and approval of their manufacturers, he should explain why that is necessary for other areas and for other groups of people, such as civil servants. If he is not going to privatise any of those categories, he must address the argument about the mini-PSAs and tell us whether there will be a national group.
The Minister should be able to say categorically that if the Bill is to apply to Northern Ireland, in the judgment of the Government it will improve the security position there. If the Government cannot make that statement, it will not be enough to say that the Bill will make no difference. All the remarks of the hon. Member for South Down about the activities of paramilitaries and all that we know about threats to employers and companies that do Crown work show that the Bill would risk making the position worse. The Opposition believe that that risk is not worth taking.

Mr. Warren: Many of the matters about which I was going to voice concern have already been raised by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), with whom I share considerable anxiety about security.
If I had been on the Standing Committee, I should have tried to obtain more detail than seems to have been obtained—but from what I have read of the report of the Committee, I am confident that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us some reassurances.
I am worried about a particular matter. The unions have drawn the attention of the House to the dangers that they regard as inherent in what they call the Trojan horse


of allowing repairs and maintenance to be done by sub-contractors who are not covered by security clearance when the work requires clearance.
As Opposition Members said, we do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to describe in public the security arrangements of those who need the cover of security. Nor do I believe that all Members of Parliament are at risk from terrorist attack. We must take our own precautions according to what is required. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will tell the House that those who require the cover of security for repair and maintenance work to their property or transport will continue to receive it. If the chauffeur service is not to be privatised, what about security clearance of those who carry out repairs and maintenance on the vehicles? What about unknown contractors who carry out repairs and maintenance work in the homes of civil servants? In Northern Ireland civil servants carry out everyday duties which here on the mainland are regarded as straightforward, but which carry an inherent risk there because the nature of those duties is considered by terrorists to be contrary to what they stupidly deploy as their views.
I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the matter does not divide the House but unites it. I hope that he will bear that in mind when he replies.

Mr. Chope: I give an absolute assurance to every hon. Member who has spoken and to the House that security is not jeopardised by the Bill one iota. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who opened the debate, expressed anxieties about security. Perhaps I can remind him of the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave to a question tabled by the hon. Gentleman on 6 February. The question was:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for the security of military installations of privatisation of the Property Services Agency.
My hon. Friend replied:
The arrangements for the security of military installations will not be adversely affected by the privatisation of the Property Services Agency."—[Official Report, 6 February, 1990: Vol 166, c. 593.]
Opposition Members do not seem prepared to accept that that is the position. I find that a sad reflection on them.
All aspects of the security of service married quarters will remain the responsibility of the relevant armed service and will continue to be taken seriously. Up to now the PSA has acted as the agent of the Ministry of Defence for the construction and maintenance of married quarters and other service buildings. It will continue to do so in future. The PSA and the many civilian contractors that it already uses are subject to the general and local security arrangements in force at the time. The privatisation of the PSA will not affect such arrangements in any way. All security matters will remain the responsibility of the appropriate service commander. Therefore, it is absolute nonsense for Opposition Members to suggest that a double standard is being applied. Security is provided with a single standard for the whole of Government business.
In Committee, the Government were guided by the advice that they received on security matters. When we were considering the details of the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers and deciding which parts of it should be privatised, we were guided by that advice. I assured the Committee, and I assure the House today, that we shall accept the advice tendered. The advice tendered on the ministerial car service was that it should not be privatised.
Although I know that some of my colleagues and some Opposition Members feel that it would be perfectly reasonable to privatise the service, we shall not privatise it because our advisers tell us that it would be wrong to do so on security grounds. That shows that the Government regard the issue of security as of paramount importance.

Mr. Soley: Were the security services consulted about the risk of privatising the PSA where it affects the security of service men and their families and civil servants? If so, what did they advise?

Mr. Chope: Private companies are already involved in the security of, for example, Ministers' residences. The hon. Gentleman and others have suggested that virtually all Ministers have security at their residence. The House will know that only a few Ministers have security precautions at their residence. Those who have security arrangements have them because of the position that they hold or have held. That includes former Ministers from both sides of the House.

Mr. Soley: My question was about a matter on which the advice was clear. The Government were told not to privatise security for Ministers' cars and homes. I am asking whether advice was requested on the security of service men and their families and civil servants. If so, what was the answer? Was it that it was OK to privatise that service because it was not a security risk? If so, what was the difference?

Mr. Chope: There is no difference. The present arrangements for Ministry of Defence establishments and employees will apply in the future. The arrangement is that Ministers and, where necessary, senior officials and service men on official business all have access to secure forms of official transport, either civilian or military, as their duties require. That is the position now and will be the position in future.

Mr. Leadbitter: The Minister must bear it in mind that the House will not be critical of the advisers to whom he must listen. However, the House must consider the history of advisers. Sometimes advice is good and sometimes it is bad. Only experience can tell us that. This matter unites the House. To what extent has consultation with the people affected by the Bill, whose future will be determined by it, and who are worried about the security services, supported the advice that the Minister has been given?

Mr. Chope: We have completed the consultation on privatisation of the Crown Suppliers. The process has been carried out to the satisfaction of all parties. I am sure that the same will be true of the privatisation of the PSA. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) is aware that the PSA is not to be privatised until the second half of 1992. At this stage the finer details of security matters have not been worked out. That is why I give the assurance that the Government will listen to and follow the advice that they receive on those matters and will not put security at risk in any way. I hope that that will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. McFall: The Minister said that ministerial cars and homes, and civil servants' homes, will not be subject to tendering. Is he telling us that politicians and civil servants face a greater threat and that their security interests are


more paramount than those of military personnel and their families, and military installations? That is the only deduction that we can make. Is that the case?

Mr. Chope: That is not the case. The Government accept the advice that they are given by their security advisers. The Ministry of Defence listens to security advice and decides how to act on it in relation to its serving personnel and their dependants. Likewise, the Government listen to security advice and act on it in relation to the protection of Ministers and former Ministers. I am sure that most people would accept that that is a reasonable way to proceed. The Government do not second-guess security advice; they receive advice and act on it. That is a responsible way to behave.

Mr. Soley: I wish to pursue this on a further intervention because the matter is extremely important. The PSA and the Crown Suppliers operate across a wide range of services. Two of the Government-appointed bodies that reported said that privatisation should not take place. The third report, the only one that dealt with how to privatise, was asked a different question. It was asked not whether privatisation should take place but how it should take place. If the first two reports advised against privatisation, was security one of the reasons for that advice? Given that the Minister made it clear in Committee that all the security work of the Crown Suppliers should not be privatised, is he saying that it will not be privatised, so the Government accept amendment No. 2?

Mr. Chope: No advice that we received on those earlier reports was directed towards the issue of security, but one report mentioned security in relation to the Government car service. The advice was that the service should not be privatised on security grounds. I am sure that it comforts the hon. Gentleman to know that the Government are following that advice.

Mr. Soley: I apologise to the Minister for intervening before he has answered my second question. What troubles me about that is that it suggests that the Turton report and the second Government-appointed group took account of only the Government side of the work and not the wide range of work beyond that. The least that the Government should be able to tell us is that the security implications of the Bill across the whole range of work, including prisons and special hospitals for the security services or the relevant group of police who deal with these matters, were given detailed consideration.

Mr. Chope: Perhaps I can come to those issues. Certainly I can deal with the point about the amendment and why it is not acceptable to the Government, and the extent to which the Government accept the spirit behind it.
The intention behind the amendment is to prevent the PSA from undertaking security sensitive work once it is in the private sector. The effect would be to make a clumsy impracticable and unnecessary division of the work undertaken by the PSA, between that included in a scheme in clause 1 and that retained in Government. The amendment is clumsy and impracticable because it assumes that there are clear distinctions between management of security sensitive and non-security

sensitive work. That is not the case. In most areas, the work contains a mixture of both. That is why the amendment is unacceptable.
More than two thirds of the PSA's new construction and maintenance programme is for the Ministry of Defence. The PSA is currently responsible for the project management, oversight and design of the facilities for the Trident submarine base at Coulport, Faslane and Rosyth. It manages the maintenance of all the front-line operational RAF and USAF air bases in the United Kingdom. It is the agent for arranging the construction and maintenance of barracks and married quarters for the British Army in the United Kingdom and overseas.
8.45 pm
On the civil side, the PSA has responsibilities that include overseeing the design and building of new high security prisons for the Home Office. It is also responsible for works services at Buckingham palace, Windsor castle, the Palace of Westminster and No. 10 Downing street. It maintains buildings and services at GCHQ in Cheltenham.
Although the PSA manages all those works, that does not imply that it is responsible now for determining security requirements. It is the responsibility of the client Department to assess the level and nature of the threat to its various facilities and to decide what type of protection is needed. That is true, for example, of the weapon resistance of hardened aircraft shelters and the physical protection of individual Government buildings. The PSA's task is to take the requirements specified by the client and arrange to design facilities that meet those requirements.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister says that the PSA is responsible for No. 10 Downing street. Will he confirm that on 24 January the Prime Minister went to the Tate gallery to see its £1 million revamp and said of the gallery management:
I know, because they have told me, that since they didn't have to go to the PSA they have got a lot more value out of the money they've had. And, of course, I must tell you we have found the same in No. 10 Downing Street"?
Does the Minister share the Prime Minister's criticisms of what happened at No. 10 Downing street?

Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend was commenting on the benefits of untying, which allow customers to decide what they want and where to get it. In effect, it gives customers choice. My right hon. Friend and I are in favour of choice and I hope that the House supports the Government on that.

Mr. Dalyell: Before a Prime Minister says such a thing, what cost comparisons are made between PSA work at Downing street and that which would be done by private firms?

Mr. Chope: I cannot go into the details of particular cases. The principle is that it should be for individual clients to decide whether they wish to use the PSA and then to invite quotations from those who may wish to tender. Following the financial management initiative, I am sure that this is becoming common practice throughout Whitehall and that as a result the Government are obtaining better value for money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) was worried about clients' responsibility for security clearances of staff and contractors. To ensure that sensitive information does not get into the wrong hands, the PSA, like all Government Departments and private


sector contractors, for example, in defence procurement, has arrangements for its staff to be security cleared. More rigorous clearances are required for the most sensitive work. There is a wide range of private sector consultants who, for many years, have been carrying out many aspects of design on sensitive projects under the PSA's overall direction. For example, almost all the work of construction, other than small scale maintenance jobs, is done by private contractors. The main radioactive liquid treatment plant at Aldermaston and the floating jetty for Trident submarines at Coulport have been designed by the private sector. All the staff involved were appropriately security cleared. No security distinction is made between a design done by secure consultants and that done by civil servants.
The PSA does certain types of design, such as prisons or airfield pavements, with its own staff rather than with consultants because, over time, it has developed those areas as specialisms, not because the design has been kept in-house for security reasons.
In answer to my hon. Friend, when the PSA is privatised it will be in the same position as the consultants with whom it will compete for work and its staff will be vetted in the same way as are the staff of the present consultants. Decisions about clearance requirements will turn on the nature of the work that the PSA wins or the arrangements that its Government customers demand, since it is the client, and not the consultant, that settles the security regime to be followed.
As I said earlier, although the vast majority of the PSA's current work is such that we are confident that privatisation will have no deleterious effect on security, there are exceptions to that. There is the remaining very small proportion of work that will be retained within Government. In the case of the Crown Suppliers, a review that we carried out in 1988 concluded that some of the Crown Suppliers' work should be retained within Government. In the case of the PSA, there are one or two areas where more work needs to be done before final decisions are taken about precisely which activities should be retained in Government. The security and privacy of Her Majesty the Queen and the royal family will be an essential consideration. Other activities concern specialised work at very sensitive facilities, including the development, installation and maintenance of high security equipment that the PSA carries out for a range of Government clients.
Discussions are currently taking place with all the interested parties in Government to decide how those functions should be handled in the future. But the privatisation of the PSA cannot take place before late 1992, so there is adequate time to make sure that we take the right decisions. If it is necessary, as it may well be, to retain specific functions in Government to preserve security, we shall certainly do so. I can assure the House of that.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) raised the issue of United States forces. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the building work managed by the PSA, with few exceptions, is undertaken by private sector building contractors, which have far more men on site at any one time than the PSA has. The United States air force has no general security bar on the use of private contractors on its bases in relation to the sort of services that the PSA provides. Indeed, it has private contractors on its bases for a number of purposes. I know that on one

base it has a private sector security agent as well. Following privatisation, the PSA will be in the same position as are the other private sector companies on those bases.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) referred to Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, security is the responsibility of the customer who commissions the work, rather than of the PSA. The PSA undertakes work in Northern Ireland that is not related to the security services. For example, it works for Northern Ireland Departments, such as the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture, and it maintains Hillsborough castle. Those who have been to the castle recently have been much impressed by the work that the PSA has done there. It also works for the Inland Revenue and for Customs and Excise, and in the new competitive world that it now faces it could well offer very attractive services in areas in which it has skills and resources.
The purpose of clause 6(2) is to allow the PSA's organisation and facilities in Northern Ireland to be included in the privatisation. They represent a sizeable slice of the PSA's business, and Northern Ireland offers an important area of the United Kingdom where the company could seek to expand its markets.

Mr. O'Brien: Do I take it that the Northern Ireland Office, like the other Departments, will have its personnel—accountants, consultants, architects, the people who oversee the work—in place? Will the Northern Ireland Office have in post the same type of people as other Departments have in post?

Mr. Chope: The Northern Ireland Office will have in post the people who are necessary. For example, the Hillsborough castle project is under the auspices of the Northern Ireland Office. That Department has a project sponsorship role. The principles that apply to the Northern Ireland Office will be the same as those that apply to other Government Departments.

Mr. McFall: The Minister says that the same principles will apply. Does that mean that, in Northern Ireland, works services will be put out to competitive tender, as happens in other parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Chope: The details of how works services in Northern Ireland are dealt with have not yet been finalised. In his earlier remarks the hon. Gentleman jumped to a conclusion. No final decision has been taken about the way in which works services in Northern Ireland are to be dealt with. Obviously, security will be paramount.

Mr. Soley: When the PSA is privatised, the people in Northern Ireland who work for it will cease to be civil servants. At present any civil servant who comes under a serious death threat in Northern Ireland can be moved, not just from his home, but to a totally different job elsewhere. When the PSA is in the private sector, what safeguard will there be?

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman speaks as if there were no private sector people working in Northern Ireland at present. Certainly the PSA people who work in Northern Ireland whom I have met, despite the threats under which they operate—and let us not kid ourselves: there are threats against PSA personnel in Northern Ireland, just as


there are threats against other people there—enjoy working in Northern Ireland and wish to continue doing so. I am sure that that will continue to be the case, whether they are in the private sector or in the public sector.

Mr. Soley: I am sure that those people enjoy working in Northern Ireland. They are also very brave. But the Minister is avoiding the question. The situation is that if one comes under a death threat, one can be moved from one's house. One can be moved to a Civil Service job elsewhere, even in another part of the United Kingdom. How could that happen if the organisation were in the private sector? In the private sector at the moment, one can be shot. Often, as happened very recently—it was reported in the press—companies withdraw from contracts. Are we going down that road? I want to know. When those people cease to be civil servants, and end up in the private sector, will they simply withdraw from the contract if they are threatened, or will there be arrangements to move them as if they were still civil servants?

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is jumping to conclusions and is overstating his case. Indeed, he is doing so in a rather irresponsible way.

Mr. Soley: I do not accept that. Both I and the Secretary of State have had experience of the problems of Northern Ireland. I should be quite happy if the Secretary of State were to have a word with the Minister about this matter. We know that what I have just said is factually correct in every detail. I appreciate that the Minister may not have been told what the process is, but somebody somewhere must have given this matter some thought.

Mr. Chope: I do not think that it would be appropriate this evening to go into the details of what happens at present when such a situation arises in the private sector.

Mr. Soley: We know what happens.

Mr. Chope: I think that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed as to exactly what happens at present, as to the arrangements in particular circumstances when this occurs in the private sector. I do not think that it would be helpful to go into that tonight. Obviously, such considerations are very much in the forefront of the Government's mind in deciding what to do about privatisation of the PSA in the context of Northern Ireland. I do not think that the security of any individual in the PSA will be affected adversely by the arrangements.

Mr. McFall: The Minister has said that we are jumping to conclusions, but he is misleading the House, or talking ignorance. From public documents I can tell the Minister that works services will not be put out to competitive tender. I challenge the Minister on that point.

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is making assertions and challenges, but I think that he is referring to a study that is now under way. The question is whether, initially, maintenance and minor works services will be put out to tender. In the first instance it is for the Ministry of Defence to consider the extent to which it will be involved in market testing. To my knowledge, no final decision has yet been taken on the matter and I believe that the hon. Gentleman is referring to speculation and studies that are now being undertaken. Ultimately, it will be for the MOD to decide

how it will procure its works and maintenance in Northern Ireland. I assure the House that a decision has already been taken in principle that there will be competition for all major new works in Northern Ireland.
9 pm
To identify within legislation the security group as the part of the PSA to be retained within Government would be an imprecise and blunt instrument of administration. Currently some activities outside that group, such as emergency planning, may need to be retained within Government. Equally the review currently in progress may identify work that could readily be undertaken within the private sector.
All those issues are being reviewed and I hope that Opposition Members will accept that we treat seriously the question of where certain security activities should rest. Hon. Members will be aware that we brought into the PSA certain secure activities from the Crown Suppliers, which we thought were unsuitable within the private sector. Those and other activities in turn are likely to transfer to Property Holdings or elsewhere within Government.
I assure the House, as I did the Committee, that nothing will be done under the Bill that is against security advice. Security advice was taken in deciding those parts of the Crown Suppliers which are to be privatised and those parts which are not. We took decisions fully in accordance with that security advice. I hope that that gives confidence that we shall likewise take decisions fully in accordance with security advice when dealing with the detail of what is or what is not to be privatised in the PSA. Obviously, as privatisation is not due until 1992, there is plenty of time in the interim.
I hope that I have been able to allay hon. Members' concerns about security and that I have been able to show that the Government take the issue of security extremely seriously. The Bill in no way jeopardises that security.

Mr. Soley: With the permission of the House, I just wish to place it on record that our concerns have not been allayed, nor are we happy about this. We do not intend to press the amendment to a Division, but this is one of the issues on which we shall press for a Division on Third Reading.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 2

TRANSFERRED STAFF

Mr. Dalyell: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, leave out lines 20 to 24 and insert
'the transferee shall

(a) provide pension rights and benefits which are comparable to those presently arising out of the principal Civil Service pension schemes; and
(b) provide so far as possible, redundancy compensation rights which are identical to those presently arising out of the principal Civil Service pension scheme, and no rights arising by virtue of this subsection shall be regarded as identical unless they are adequately funded and guaranteed.'.
I move this amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and my other colleagues.
There is great concern about the issues of the terms of severance.
On 8 February the Minister wrote to me about matters of policy and administration not covered by the


Solicitor-General's written replies to questions raised in Committee. In the fourth paragraph of his letter, the Minister stated that a statement of terms of employment would be sent to staff while they were in the employment of the Government-owned company. He went on to say that this statement would then be binding on the purchasers of the shares in the company and would be enforceable against him by the staff.
How will that statement bind the eventual purchaser?
Does the Minister agree that the new owner will only be bound by the normal application of the rules of the law of contract?
Does he agree that the terms referred to may be changed by a new employer giving notice of alteration of those terms?
Does the Minister agree that in such circumstances the only options available to staff will be to accept the new conditions or refuse to accept them by quitting employment and claiming unfair dismissal?
Does he agree that the maximum compensation available under such a claim is limited to little more than £14,000? That is not adequate compensation for the loss of severance entitlements which may easily be worth in excess of £100,000.
The Minister should accept that a new employer who is constrained only by the normal rules of contract law is not bound in relation to terms. He must face up to the fact that the terms are easily changed by the new employer and the arrangements proposed in the third paragraph of his letter do not bind the new employer in any meaningful sense of the word.
Does the Minister agree that none of the arrangements proposed in the third paragraph of his letter protects the staff in the event of the new company being put into liquidation? In paragraph 4, the Minister says:
If the new owner failed to pay the agreed redundancy terms the employee could sue…for breach of contract, and ask for summary judgment. The damages could be quantified because they could be ascertained from the statement of redundancy terms issued to staff.
In that paragraph the Minister describes one of the few circumstances in which a breach of contract could result in the recovery of damages approximating to severance entitlements. Those circumstances are limited. A redundancy payment would have to be under the terms of a transferred contract that had not been altered by the new employer.
Does the Minister agree that no prospect of recovering damages exists when no redundancy exists, an employer has given notice to vary the terms and no actual redundancy arises during the course of that notice or when the employer gives no notice to vary redundancy terms and the individual is not affected by redundancy during the period of notice that should have been given?
Will the Minister admit that a large variety of circumstances could arise in which staff could not take action for damages?
As a constituency Member of Parliament, I am extremely reluctant to advise any constituent to go to law unless he or she has an absolute cast-iron assurance of legal aid. In the cases that I have described legal aid might not be forthcoming.
Does the Minister agree that the only sure means to ensure that staff retain a practical course of action for

damages is by making severance terms a statutory right? In any other case, terms may be varied and staff would have no means of redress except unfair dismissal.
Does the Minister agree that severance terms are at risk in the private sector? Will he propose some means to minimise that risk? That could be done by the Treasury underwriting the terms, as with the ordnance factories and dockyards, giving staff a statutory right to redundancy terms or setting up some kind of trust fund.
Does the Minister believe that there are no risks in the private sector? The furniture and furnishings trade is in deep recession at present and the Crown Suppliers is making a loss of £2 million.
Will the Minister admit that there is a risk that severance terms may not be honoured in the private sector? Where there is such a risk, it is incumbent on the Government to admit that severance pay might be at risk in some circumstances and protect staff when necessary.
The staff at the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers regard the security of their pensions and their redundancy compensation as crucial. They are alarmed at the Government's refusal to provide any protection other than that contained in the transfer of undertakings in the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, about which we had so much to say in Committee. I shall tell the House why.
This privatisation is unique, in that the PSA and the Crown Suppliers are neither monopolies nor established businesses. Both organisations are Government functions and as such are highly unsuitable for privatisation. The Crown Suppliers prove the point. Its main furnishings activity is in ruins. For 1989, its audited accounts will show a loss of about £9 million.
So bad are its prospects that the Minister has been begging other Departments to guarantee it work. In particular, he has pleaded with the Ministry of Defence to sign contracts which would have the Crown Suppliers provide exclusively all furnishing needs for the next two years. Without guaranteed work from the Government the management buy-out will lose its financial backing and other prospective purchasers will lose interest. The privatisation would collapse. How rich in irony it is that this Minister, the great advocate of open competition who so loudly has proclaimed that the customer must have the greatest possible choice, has performed a U-turn and is now imploring his fellow Ministers to forgo competition and guarantee the Crown Suppliers work.
Has the Minister suddenly become worried about what might happen to the Crown Suppliers' staff? The problems of a collapsed privatisation are serious. Guaranteed work over a limited period might satisfy bankers, but it does not satisfy the staff. The staff want a guarantee but of a different kind. They want their redundancy entitlements and their pensions guaranteed against future change imposed by the new owner. If accepted, the amendment would give them just that.
The Minister has come under great pressure on pensions and redundancy payments from staff and their trade unions. He recently sent me a letter seeking to provide further assurances about redundancy compensation. He said that the purchaser would be required to provide redundancy terms by
sending a statement of the terms to the staff while the company in question is in Government ownership. That


statement would then be binding on the purchasers of the shares in the company and would be enforceable against him by the staff.
As to the actual payment of redundancy compensation,
if the new owner failed to pay the agreed redundancy terms the employee could sue…sfor breach of contract and ask for summary judgment. The damages could be quantified because they could be ascertained from the statement of redundancy terms issued to staff.
That might sound helpful, but I am advised that the assurances are not worth the paper they are written on, because the new owner can give notice of changes to the redundancy terms from day 1 of the sale and after an extremely short period of notice can then impose new terms.
The Minister is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. The notion that the letter drafted by the Crown Suppliers privatisation unit provides any meaningful protection is as fanciful as the notion that the Crown Suppliers privatisation unit knew nothing about the Crown Suppliers' extended contracts long before Second Reading of the Bill. The only real protection is through ensuring by statute that redundancy terms and pensions cannot be varied by the new owner without the agreement of staff.
The Minister has often said that the future for the PSA and the Crown Suppliers is bright. If that is so, the new owner will not be concerned by the amendment.
9.15 pm
I must return to the episode with the Prime Minister and Downing street. The Prime Minister cannot think that the future is bright because she virtually guaranteed that it would be rather dim. On 24 January she went to the Tate gallery to see its £1 million revamp and said:
I know, because they"—
the Tate gallery management—
have told me, that since they didn't have to go to PSA they have got a lot more value out of the money they've had. And, of course, I must tell you that we have found the same in No. 10 Downing Street.
That is not exactly a wonderful advertisement for the sale of the PSA; what a kick in the teeth it is for the staff of the PSA. Of course, the Prime Minister was not right. The Tate gallery did not invite the PSA to bid for the work, and No. 10 has had no work undertaken in which a cost comparison between PSA and private firms has been made. The right hon. Lady was wrong, but because she made those remarks, and because her Ministers and civil servants will be forced to make excuses, other Government Departments and potential customers in the private sector will believe her and will be less inclined to go to the PSA.
The right hon. Lady should admit the truth, and as compensation for the effect of her remarks she should instruct the Minister to agree to guaranteed severance and pensions by accepting this amendment.
The position on pensions is worse. The Minister has said that he will invite purchasers to provide broadly comparable pensions and that he will insist on it. He has also said that if the purchaser's pension scheme is inferior, the Government Actuary will be asked to assess the difference and to recommend a compensatory amount. However, the amount will not be sufficient to buy a pension equivalent to a Civil Service pension. It will merely be an amount to acknowledge the loss—in other words, to recognise that staff have suffered detriment and it will not compensate staff for the loss.
The Minister's intention is even nastier. He has said that the Government Actuary will take into account overall differences between the terms that staff now have and those offered by the purchaser. Therefore, if the purchaser offers more pay, a company car or better leave, the Government Actuary will put a value on those extras and deduct it from the compensation. If the new owner withdraws the better conditions soon after the sale, staff will have no entitlement to seek extra compensation from the Government.
There is no point in the Minister going on about breach of contract. The new owner merely has to give notice of a change, and once that notice has expired he or she is free to impose new terms. Even if the new owner does not give notice, the amount of damages that a court might award would be only the sum of the calculated loss during the notice period. The law is no friend of the employee in this matter.
The PSA and the Crown Suppliers staff believe that the Minister is prepared to swindle them out of thousands of pounds of hard-earned severance and pensions, and they have said as much in letters to hon. Members and by their actions. Recently the technical staff at the Crown Suppliers were asked whether they wanted to stay with the Crown Suppliers or to take early retirement or redundancy. More than two thirds said that they wanted to get out, but only one third will be allowed to leave.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and I had the privilege of addressing many of the Crown Suppliers staff who came to a rally at the Central hall, in Westminster. There can be no doubt that they are loyal Government employees who feel considerable dissatisfaction. The PSA's employees' unions have skilfully manipulated the Minister to agree to ask the staff whether they want to stay, to move to other posts in the Civil Service, or to take early retirement or redundancy. This preference exercise will take place in March. The exercise is eminently sensible since the Minister is not prepared to play fair with their future conditions of service. However, the Minister, who says that he is a great proponent of free choice, will allow staff to leave only if they are not needed. If they are needed, he and the PSA's new get-rich-quick controllers will force staff to remain. I ask the Minister to tell the House the terms of the preference exercise, and the results when they are known.
I say bluntly to the House that Ministers are abusing their power. Their actions and intentions are undemocratic, hostile to the work force and add up to a good reason for voting Labour, as 23,000 staff will find when it comes to casting their vote.
Some of us have, perforce, put a quick legal case. Even if the Bill passes into law, my hon. Friends and I who were on the Committee will use every procedure of the House to monitor what happens to the Crown Suppliers and the Property Services Agency staff. The matter will not go away. The severance terms for loyal staff who have served successive Governments are an absolute disgrace to our society.

Mr. Warren: My hon. Friend the Minister well knows the many concerns that I have expressed over several months about procedures for the privatisation which, in principle, I support. I hope that he does not think that I am being too hard on him when I say that as this is not the first privatisation by the Government, I would have expected to see a rule book to which he and my right hon. Friend the


Secretary of State would have had access so that there would not be tumult and concern among so many of my constituents.
The PSA is the largest single employer in my constituency. Over 1,000 staff work at Ashdown house andmy hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) also has constituents employed by the PSA. All the concerns that have been raised by my constituents could have been alleviated by clear declarations on Second Reading or before about the intention of Government in relation to the future terms and conditions of those employed by PSA after privatisation. There are precedents for that which I am sure are well known. On Second Reading of the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said
the new company pension scheme … will provide benefits for transferred employees
comparable to those that they currently enjoy, including the continuation of index-linking."—[Official Report,16 January 1984; Vol. 52, c.104.]
On Report Lord Trefgarne said:
the Government have undertaken that the company will provide for transferred employees a pension scheme which is comparable to the Principal Civil Service scheme … the benefits of the scheme will be comparable to those of the principal Civil Service pension scheme and will be index-linked in line with the 1971 Act."—[Official Report, House of Lords,16 October 1984; Vol. 455, c. 954–55.]
All that could have been made clear at the beginning. I have received many thousands of letters and met many delegations, and people are rightly concerned that having chosen a life in the Civil Service, which included a pension scheme to which they contributed, it should be secure at all times. Doubt has been the source of concern and that has besieged me, quite correctly, as the Member for Hastings and Rye.
These good people have loyally served the Crown. As the Minister has said, the PSA will not be privatised for two and a half years. Therefore, with three years of anticipation of privatisation I should have thought that an assurance would be in the mind of the Government rather than to allow doubts to dwell and grow.
I am grateful to Sir Gordon Manzie who, with his senior staff, visited Hasting in December. I pay tribute to him for the many years of loyal service that he gave to the PSA and to the Government service before that. He will be sadly missed. He was probably surprised at the way in which the needs of the employees of the PSA have not been considered in the higher echelons of that organisation. I hope that the Minister will be able to put those doubts to rest once and for all. I was grateful for a letter that I received from him on Friday in which he gave an assurance that I am sure he would like me to quote. He said:
On pensions the government has given very firm assurances and is certainly not seeking to escape from its commitment. We have said that the Government will expect staff to be offered arrangements for pensions that are broadly comparable to those they now enjoy. If the purchaser's proposed pension arrangements are different from the PCSPS, then the scheme will be evaluated by the Government Actuary.
That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The Minister continued:
If he concludes that it is not broadly comparable, the Government will seek in negotiation to improve the pension terms, or to compensate in some other way, for example by improving other terms and conditions of employment.

Finally, but only if all those routes proved impossible, the Government would compensate the staff for any remaining pensions disadvantage.
I am delighted to hear that, but, with respect to my hon. Friend, that could have been made clear from the start. I hope that he will clear up those doubts and offer a commitment that can be included in the Bill to show that the Government accept their duty.
My second point—and I trust that I will not deviate from the amendment on redundancy and compensation rights—is about the future employment of staff. It has been said that this privatisation is three years away. A letter was circulated to Government Departments by the PSA suggesting that up to 800 staff of the establishment of 1,200 in Hastings would lose their jobs because it could not be foreseen what work they would do. That was the essence of that letter—I have not been privy to a sight of it—and it got back to the employees in some form or another. Two thirds of the people in that establishment believed that their jobs would be wiped out, yet that wiping out was many years away.
These people are loyal civil servants. I cannot speak for all of them, but they probably want to remain civil servants. Some of them are mobile, but some are not. Their future should have been made clear to them, rather than it having to be left to their Member of Parliament, who is eager to represent their interests, to say, "What will you do about these 800 people who will lose their jobs?"
The canvassing for job replacement should have begun much earlier. If 800 of the 1,200 staff were thought likely to lose their jobs, one wonders who will do the work that they have been doing. I have been reassured by my hon. Friend the Minister, who has told me in the past week that the efforts to attract other Government work to Hastings are starting to bear fruit. I am delighted to be able to report to the House that he has said that Customs and Excise has confirmed that it expects to open a new VAT office in Ashdown house, Hastings in the autumn and that he will maintain pressure onotherGovernment Departments.
Good employer-employee relationships rely on employees expecting their employer—and in this case it will be the Government for the next two and a half years—to put loyalty to the employee first and foremost.
I have made clear that my constituent's concerns can be laid to rest by the Minister, and I trust that he will not fail to do so.

Mr. Livsey: The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) gave one of the main reasons why we cannot support the Bill. The PSA has 21,000 employees, and national estimates show that up to half of them could lose their jobs.
Amendment No. 3 at least provides pension rights and benefits comparable to those under the principal Civil Service pension scheme. During the privatisations of the royal ordnance factories and the royal dockyards, concrete assurances were given in the House and in the other place that such rights would be offered to the satisfaction of employees. Why cannot the Government offer the employees of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers the same guarantees? That does not seem unreasonable.
The other part of the amendment, which refers to
redundancy compensation rights which are identical to those presently arising out of the principal Civil Service pension scheme",
is also essential.
We are asking for common decency in the treatment of these employees. Ministers have not given employees the cast-iron guarantees that we would want to be provided. The amendment provides a minimum requirement, so it is not asking a great deal. Employees deserve that provision. They are loyal civil servants who have carried out their tasks and who are prepared to change their type of work and even to work in different places as needs be. It will be poor recompense if, in two and a half years when the PSA may be privatised, they do not have a just pension or redundancy scheme. We are asking for the minimum and the Minister should respond positively to our demands.

Mr. Michael Stern: One would not think from the contributions of the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) that the detailed assurances that they rightly seek on behalf of existing employees of PSA and the Crown Suppliers were given and discussed in great detail by my hon. Friend the Minister in Committee. They are asking for direct repetition of what was said in Committee, but the amendment goes further and asks us to quantify the unquantifiable.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Linlithgow something that started and expanded in Committee. He attempted—I do not think that he will wish to dissociate himself wholly from this charge—to talk down the business of the Crown Suppliers, and I use that as an example. No reliable figures are available yet, but when the supposed loss of the Crown Suppliers was first mentioned in Committee it was estimated to be £1 million. We have heard tonight that it is £9 million. We have heard tonight that the supposed redundancies among employees of the Crown Suppliers and PSA have risen from one third to one half of the work force. Such exercises by the Opposition may well be advisable politically, but they do no favours to the staff and the future of those organisations.
I should like to refer to one aspect that makes the amendment look even more out of line. Let us forget its exact wording. I gently chide those Opposition Front-Bench Members who tabled the amendment. We are dealing not with an amendment in Committee tabled for discussion purposes but with an amendment to a Bill that will soon leave the House for another place as a legislative proposal. We owe it to the other place and to our constituents to ensure that such legislation is workable, yet paragraph (b) states that it will be a matter of law to
provide pension rights and benefits which are comparable to those presently arising".
Apples and pears are comparable, but comparison does not have great meaning. I am not sure that it does the Opposition any credit to propose words so loosely chosen as to be meaningless. The media tell us that the Opposition have ambitions one day to form a Government. All I can say is that if that is the sort of law that they are going to propose they are clearly a long way from enabling us to take their ambition with any seriousness.
As we said in Commitee, what the amendment asks is impossible to implement and, in many instances, undesirable. I would not wish any married woman, divorcee or recent widow to be forced to accept the pension scheme standards currently operating in the Civil Service, and the amendment would make matters even

worse by leaving the Government free to determine which Civil Service pension scheme should be used for the purpose of comparison.
Any pension scheme represents a compromise between the rights of different employees at different stages in their careers. In any scheme some classes of employee will do well and some badly. Surely it is right for us to adopt the Government's approach and offer employees an overall valuation of any alternative pension that is offered, with compensation where necessary, rather than laying down a rigid rule that would ensure that those who do badly under the present pension scheme also do badly under any future scheme.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) may well be right in saying that the amendment is not ideally worded; I am not a lawyer, so I do not know. What I do know is that I wish that the amendment has been part of the original Bill. It could then have been amended in Committee according to my hon. Friend's wishes and with all the details that he requires, and we would have known whether we were talking about apples or pears.
Failing that, I wish that this had been a Government rather than an Opposition amendment. Despite my hon. Friend's comment that firm assurances have been given at each stage of the Bill, the fact is that PSA staff in my constituency—and, I am sure, elsewhere—are not convinced of the adequacy of the assurances that they have been given. I say that as a supporter of the principle of the Bill: I have told my PSA constituents that I consider it good and sensible.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), to whose contribution I listened very carefully, said that he could draw on examples that suggest that the PSA does not necessarily offer the best value for money. I am not sure whether his examples are well chosen, although I assume that he has chosen them with his customary care. I have suggested to the PSA employees in my constituency that there are advantages in being in the private sector, where the pressures of competition will ensure that the new firm offers a service that gives value for money, but they remain concerned about their redundancy payments and pension rights.
The Minister—who is a not-too-distant neighbour of mine—will probably know one reason why that is particularly true in Portsmouth, where many employees are experiencing privatisation for the second time, having been employed in the royal naval dockyard. They have every reason to say not only that for the second time in a supposedly secure Civil Service lifetime they have been faced with upheaval, but that on the first occasion they were given clear assurances about the establishment and guaranteeing of their future. This time, for some reason, the Government's promises have been wrapped up in jargon that they do not understand.
I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister when he replies to recognise that for good or ill there are employees—loyal civil servants—who are greatly concerned about the future of their redundancy payments if they become redundant. The trouble is that none of those employees know whether they will be made redundant. Neither are they aware whether they will be allowed to take early retirement. They are also not aware of what pension conditions will apply if they remain with the privatised company. No wonder they are worried.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West said, perhaps assurances have been given. However, the assurances that I have read would not allow me to say to my constituents, "Look at that. There's the answer. Go away and don't worry." Some of my constituents visited the House a few weeks ago and they told me that they were very concerned about these issues.
When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I hope that he will spell out in words of two or three syllables—as redundancy cannot be encompassed in words of one syllable—what guarantees exist for my constituents. Some of my constituents have already suffered redundancy and moved from the royal naval dockyards to the PSA. What guarantees do they have that in two years' time they will not face worse redundancy or pension terms than they would have had if the PSA remained in the public sector?
If my hon. Friend the Minister can provide assurances, I promise him that I will tell my constituents that they will benefit from the Bill. The Government have every reason to offer such assurances tonight. They would then be setting the tone for the debates in another place which, again, must be to the advantage of the Government as well as for those who are worried about their future. The PSA employees have served us well and I hope that the Minister will consider them tonight.

Mr. Chope: I am pleased to be able to respond to this very good debate which has covered the all-important issue of terms and conditions of service for PSA staff. As several hon. Members have said, the PSA is blessed with good and loyal staff and the Government are as aware as anyone of the need to ensure that the PSA staff are well looked after. I want to deal with the effects that the amendment would have and explain why the Government cannot accept it. In doing that, I will respond to the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) and for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) on behalf of their constituents. I will also pray in aid of some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). I will also deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
The hon. Member for Linlithgow wanted to have it both ways. On the one hand he suggested that the privatised companies would be in such dire financial straits that they would not be able to meet their redundancy obligations. On the other hand he said that those companies would be controlled by, as he put it, get-rich-quick controllers. No controller will get rich very quickly if the business does not flourish. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's reference to that is an acceptance that the businesses will be able to flourish in the private sector and that all the employees, whether in a management or a subsidiary role, will be able to share in the fruits of the success of the enterprises.
The amendment would have several effects. It would require the new owners of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers to provide the staff with a pension scheme comparable to the principal Civil Service pension scheme. It would also require the new owners to provide the staff as far as possible with identical redundancy terms to those that they have at present. It also appears to require redundancy terms to be guaranteed out of public funds. It will also delete paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 2(2).
On pensions, the Government have no doubt that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)

Regulations 1981 will apply to the sales. As hon. Members know, the regulations give effect to the European Community's acquired rights directive. The regulations ensure that staff contracts of employment are not terminated by the sale of a commercial undertaking. They also have the effect of transferring unchanged all their existing terms and conditions of employment, with the exception of those relating to pensions. That omission is because, given the diversity of pension schemes, it would be unreasonable to require purchasers exactly to reproduce the existing scheme.
That is not to say that employees' pensions provisions are unprotected. It may be helpful if I quote what my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said in Committee. At one stage, Opposition Members cast doubt on whether the TUPE regulations were to apply to PSA staff. From what my right hon. and learned Friend said, it is quite clear that the TUPE regulations apply. He said:
in the case of a person transferred, under TUPE the transferor and the transferee must so arrange things that the pension rights enjoyed by staff after the transfer are broadly comparable with those enjoyed before. That is the legal requirement".
He went on:
If they do not, or cannot, the Government and the Crown will need to ensure that staff are compensated for any disadvantage."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 January 1990; c. 202.]
I assure hon. Members that the Government accept those legal obligations and will comply with them.
9.45 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye referred to assurances that were made to staff, irrespective of the privatisation of the royal ordnance factories and the royal dockyards. Those privatisations were more advanced when the assurances were given. As the sales of the Crown Suppliers and the PSA proceed, it should be possible to give firmer assurances about the comparability of pensions terms. Obviously, until we know who is to purchase the business, it is not possible to know what the purchaser's pension arrangements are and what he is offering. In cases such as the royal ordnance factories, when the Bill was before the House and was being considered by hon. Members, it was clear who was to be the purchaser and what his pension terms would be. That is why there is an inevitable distinction between what happened in that case and what happens with the PSA.
On redundancy, the amendment falls into two parts. The first part concerns the redundancy terms themselves. The amendment would require the new owners to provide redundancy terms that, as far as possible, are identical to those that they have at present. That is precisely the commitment that the Government have given the staff. Hon. Members will have realised that, on pensions and redundancy terms, the amendment would do no more than the Government are already seeking to achieve. Those are requirements that arise from existing United Kingdom law and from the Government's obligations arising from our membership of the European Community. I believe that it is unnecessary, and indeed undesirable, to clog up the statute book with provisions that merely repeat existing requirements. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North asked why the Government did not put that provision into the Bill. The reason is that it is unnecessary and superfluous. It is already the law of the land, and the Government will comply with the law of the land.
The second part of the amendment dealing with redundancy refers to guarantees. The trade unions concerned and Opposition Members have made clear their views on the need for guarantees from public funds. That is an important point on which the unions have made representations, and I can assure the House that their views are being considered. Of course, their fears are greatly exaggerated. During the sale competitions we shall give preference to potential purchasers who demonstrate a willingness and ability to run the businesses as going concerns and also have the necessary financial robustness to do so. It is not the Government's general experience that firms act unscrupulously or in bad faith by contriving redundancies for which they cannot or will not pay. It is not easy for employers to avoid their obligations, and they generally prove very reluctant to damage their reputations in the marketplace and with their staff. One of the criteria for selecting the purchasers will be an assessment of their ability to finance any redundancies that become necessary after privatisation, and I do not believe, therefore, that there is any need for guarantees of public funds.

Mr. Dalyell: rose——

Mr. Chope: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I am referring to the various allegations that he made about the effect on terms and conditions if an employer who purchased the business changed those terms and conditions. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's statement. Much of the material that he used as his source was issued by the trade unions and suggests that there is no protection for an employee if the new employer wishes to impose changes in the terms and conditions after privatisation. An employer cannot do that. The general principle of law is that fundamental terms and conditions cannot be changed without the agreement of the employees. If, therefore, an employer tries to impose changes in the terms and conditions, such as those relating to redundancy, the employee merely has to inform the employer that he does not accept the new terms and if the employee is then made redundant after a period of notice, he can insist on the payment of his old redundancy rights. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the employee would be limited to his statutory rights, but I repeat that such an employee would be entitled to his old redundancy rights on a contractual basis.
I accept that if the purchaser went into liquidation, an action for damages might fail to achieve redress, but we shall be at pains to choose purchasers who are financially robust.

Mr. Dalyell: When the Minister and his advisers have had an opportunity to reflect on my speech in print, may I expect a letter of clarification on the points raised?

Mr. Chope: If, after reading my speech in print, the hon. Gentleman feels that any further clarification is necessary, perhaps he will write to me and I shall deal with the matter.
There has only been one Civil Service case in which the Government have agreed to pay redundancy costs. That was Devonport dockyard. It was justified in that case because of the Government's own decision to run down the work load there. We expect the Crown Suppliers and PSA to succeed commercially, which is why the cases are different.
The fourth and final effect of the amendment would be to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 2(2). These

provisions, which have appeared in all recent Acts for privatisations involving members of the principal Civil Service pension scheme, are to deal with a quirk in the terms and conditions of employment of civil servants. Because their redundancy terms are included in the pension scheme, and because when they are transferred out of the Civil Service they must cease to be members of the pension scheme, they would automatically become entitled to redundancy compensation as well as their jobs. The staff will, of course, in no real sense be redundant when PSA and the Crown Suppliers are sold. They will have their jobs, their existing terms and conditions of employment, and pensions and redundancy terms as I have just described. To expect the taxpayer to pay what would amount to very substantial sums in redundancy compensation for all staff transferred could not possibly be justified in these circumstances. That point was accepted in Committee.
In conclusion, I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye that I am well aware of the concern in his constituency about the rundown in the number of staff employed by the PSA. However, that is not a consequence of privatisation. It is a consequence of untying, of reorganisation and of a cost-effectiveness exercise. As I stated in the letter to my hon. Friend to which he referred, we—not only myself, but other Government Departments—are doing all that we can to ensure that alternative employment opportunities are available in Hastings. I have already visited Hastings once and have made arrangements to visit the town again soon. I hope that I shall have the opportunity of meeting the staff there and of allaying their concerns.
For the reasons that I have outlined, I hope that the House will reject the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 2, line 25, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Chope.]

Order for Third Reading read. [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
When I moved the Second Reading, I said that, although short, the Bill was significant. I am glad that it received thorough scrutiny in Committee. The Committee's proceedings exceeded 26 hours, of which more than 20 hours were devoted to the first two of the Bill's six clauses. The debates on those clauses concentrated mainly on the effect of the Bill on the Government as a customer of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers and on the position of the staff.
The Government are convinced that the PSA and Crown Suppliers face a better future in the private sector. We also believe that the customers of the two organisations will benefit from the change. Naturally, the Government accept that some of the activities undertaken in the past by the PSA and the Crown Suppliers are not suitable for privatisation. Those parts of the Crown Suppliers that fall into that category have already been moved to other Departments and similar arrangements are being made for the PSA.
Anxieties have been expressed about the consequences for staff of the two privatisations. We have been at pains to point out that the Bill does not affect the employment


rights of staff. Those rights were protected and transferred under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. As I explained in Committee, where they are not covered by those regulations they are protected by United Kingdom employment law.
I hope that the House will acknowledge the care with which the Government have addressed the issue of staff employment rights. I repeat the assurance already given to employees and to the House that the staff of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers will not be disadvantaged as a result of privatisation. I believe that the staff will gain from the measure and that the PSA and Crown Suppliers face a much better future in the private sector.
I hope that with those brief remarks I have demonstrated to the House that customers, Departments and staff of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers have nothing to fear from privatisation and much to gain.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the skilful way in which he has piloted this important Bill through its various stages. I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.

Mr. Soley: We regard the Bill as the pursuit of ideology for its own sake. There will be many mini-PSAs. No doubt they have already been set up in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We shall have to re-invent the PSA in years to come, and we all know it. If the Bill has not been enacted by the time that Labour takes office, we shall stop it and rebuild what has been destroyed.
We have had lengthy and detailed debates about the security aspects of the Bill. We are far from happy about it. I do not accept, and the House does not accept, that privatisation of Ministers' cars and the security of their homes should be exempt from privatisation while the means of security of our forces and their families and of senior civil servants should be privatised. There must be something wrong with that, and we all know it.
Security in Northern Ireland is even more important. When private contractors are threatened with being shot or have to withdraw from contracts because of such threats, it cannot be right to transfer activities to the private sector.
I was interested to note that we received the support of a couple of Conservative Back-Bench Members on pensions and redundancy. If all Conservative Members had 2,000 employees in their constituency, perhaps we should have better pension and redundancy schemes.
It is clear from a leaked document from the Department that jobs will be lost as a result of the measure. We know that. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) referred to the insecurity of the work force in his constituency which has already suffered the privatisation of the royal dockyard. The same could happen again.
Finally, there is the danger of sweeteners, which occurred with the Rover and British Aerospace deals. We shall watch out for that carefully because we know that in the past the Government have used taxpayers' money to persuade the private sector to buy an undertaking that should not have been sold in the first place. That is our position, and why we shall vote against the Bill tonight.

Mr. Livsey: The principle of the Bill is worthy of consideration. It falls down because we are looking at the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers, which is making a loss, at a Government service and a completely new principle of privatisation. Costs will undoubtedly increase to Government Departments and the estimate for consultancies is an increase of 20 per cent.
The issue of pension rights is absolutely crucial and we have not received sufficient assurances about them. Two reports from within Government, one in 1985 and the other in 1987, said that this is a bad idea.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Livsey: The decision for privatisation has not been substantiated in our debates. The arguments about the proposals to privatise the PSA and the Crown Suppliers have not been sustained convincingly. For that reason, we are not prepared to support the Bill on Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 200.

Division No. 72]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Colvin, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Conway, Derek


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cormack, Patrick


Amess, David
Couchman, James


Amos, Alan
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, James
Davies, Q.(Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Day, Stephen


Ashby, David
Devlin, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Dicks, Terry


Atkins, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkinson, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dover, Den


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dunn, Bob


Batiste, Spencer
Durant, Tony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dykes, Hugh


Bellingham, Henry
Eggar, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Emery, Sir Peter


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Evennett, David


Benyon, W.
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bevan, David Gilroy
Favell, Tony


Body, Sir Richard
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowis, John
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Fishburn, John Dudley


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forman, Nigel


Brazier, Julian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Forth, Eric


Buck, Sir Antony
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Budgen, Nicholas
Fox, Sir Marcus


Burns, Simon
Freeman, Roger


Burt, Alistair
French, Douglas


Butler, Chris
Gardiner, George


Butterfill, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Carttiss, Michael
Goodlad, Alastair


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chope, Christopher
Gorst, John


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Gow, Ian


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)






Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miller, Sir Hal


Grist, Ian
Mills, Iain


Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Hague, William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Moate, Roger


Hannam, John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mudd, David


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Neale, Gerrard


Harris, David
Needham, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, Christopher
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayward, Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Norris, Steve


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hill, James
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hind, Kenneth
Page, Richard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Paice, James


Holt, Richard
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patnick, Irvine


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Pawsey, James


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Portillo, Michael


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Price, Sir David


Hunter, Andrew
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Irvine, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jack, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Jackson, Robert
Riddick, Graham


Janman, Tim
Rowe, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shersby, Michael


Key, Robert
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kilfedder, James
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Speller, Tony


Kirkhope, Timothy
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Knapman, Roger
Squire, Robin


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Stern, Michael


Knowles, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lang, Ian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Latham, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lee, John (Pendle)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thornton, Malcolm


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Thurnham, Peter


Lightbown, David
Tracey, Richard


Lilley, Peter
Tredinnick, David


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Trippier, David


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lord, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Walden, George


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Waller, Gary


Maclean, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Warren, Kenneth


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Watts, John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Wells, Bowen


Madel, David
Whitney, Ray


Malins, Humfrey
Widdecombe, Ann


Mans, Keith
Winterton, Nicholas


Maples, John
Wolfson, Mark


Marland, Paul
Wood, Timothy


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Maude, Hon Francis



Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Mr. Michael Fallon and 


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Mr. John M. Taylor


Meyer, Sir Anthony





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Anderson, Donald


Allen, Graham
Archer, Rt Hon Peter


Alton, David
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy





Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Ashton, Joe
Heffer, Eric S.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hinchliffe, David


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Barron, Kevin
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Battle, John
Home Robertson, John


Beckett, Margaret
Hood, Jimmy


Beith, A. J.
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Howells, Geraint


Bermingham, Gerald
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hoyle, Doug


Blair, Tony
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Blunkett, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Boateng, Paul
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Boyes, Roland
lllsley, Eric


Bradley, Keith
Ingram, Adam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Janner, Greville


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Buchan, Norman
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Buckley, George J.
Lambie, David


Caborn, Richard
Leadbitter, Ted


Callaghan, Jim
Leighton, Ron


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Lewis, Terry


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Litherland, Robert


Canavan, Dennis
Livingstone, Ken


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Livsey, Richard


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clay, Bob
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clelland, David
Loyden, Eddie


Cohen, Harry
McAllion, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Corbett, Robin
McFall, John


Cousins, Jim
McKelvey, William


Crowther, Stan
McLeish, Henry


Cryer, Bob
McWilliam, John


Cummings, John
Madden, Max


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cunningham, Dr John
Marek, Dr John


Dalyell, Tarn
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Darling, Alistair
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Martlew, Eric


Dewar, Donald
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Michael, Alun


Doran, Frank
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Morgan, Rhodri


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Morley, Elliot


Eadie, Alexander
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fatchett, Derek
Mullin, Chris


Faulds, Andrew
Murphy, Paul


Fearn, Ronald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Brien, William


Flannery, Martin
O'Neill, Martin


Flynn, Paul
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Patchett, Terry


Foster, Derek
Pendry, Tom


Foulkes, George
Pike, Peter L.


Fraser, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fyfe, Maria
Prescott, John


Galloway, George
Primarolo, Dawn


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Radice, Giles


George, Bruce
Randall, Stuart


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Redmond, Martin


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Gordon, Mildred
Reid, Dr John


Gould, Bryan
Richardson, Jo


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Robertson, George


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Grocott, Bruce
Rooker, Jeff


Hardy, Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rowlands, Ted


Haynes, Frank
Ruddock, Joan






Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dennis


Sheerman, Barry
Walley, Joan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wareing, Robert N.


Short, Clare
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Skinner, Dennis
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Winnick, David


Snape, Peter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Soley, Clive
Worthington, Tony


Spearing, Nigel
Wray, Jimmy


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Steinberg, Gerry



Strang, Gavin
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
 Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT

That the draft Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Mr. Colin Wallace

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As this debate relates to the North of Ireland, I am sure that my colleagues will not take it amiss if I refer, with sadness, to the passing of our friend, Harold McCusker. Shortly after he was elected a Member of Parliament I spent the day with him, as did others, in his constituency. It was an interesting experience because he was a marvellous host, and we learnt a lot. We mourn the passing of this courageous and brave colleague.
On Wednesday 15 November 1989, Hansard records that I asked the Prime Minister
what recent representations have been received by her Cabinet secretariat relating to events at the Kincora boys' home in Northern Ireland.
The Prime Minister replied:
I am advised that there have been no such representations from Members of Parliament and members of the public."—[Official Report, 15 November 1989; Vol. 160, c. 269.]
The word "such" was underlined. I cannot assert that never, in a parliamentary answer, has one word been underlined, but never in the recollection of four of the most senior Clerks of the House of Commons—not in the recollection of Sir Clifford Boulton, Mr. Sweetman, Mr. Limon or Mr. Winnifrith—has a word ever been underlined. Therefore, we must ask why that happened.
On 27 November 1989 I asked the Prime Minister
why, in her answer, Official Report, 15 November, relating to representations received by the Cabinet Secretariat relating to events at the Kincora boys' home she underlined the word 'such'".
The answer will not come as a shock to my hon. Friends. She said:
I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 15 November at column 269.—[Official Report, 27 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 92.]
As there were no such representations, the question that I wanted to put down but, under the Table Office rules, could not was to ask why there were representations frotn Sir Michael Quinlan, the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, and Mr. Len Appleyard, the deputy secretary in the Cabinet Office. The question of which I have given the Minister warning is this: if there were no such representations, what representations were made and what were the terms of reference?
The second question of which I gave notice to the Attorney-General's office, to whom this Adjournment debate was addressed, was to ask about the letter of the shadow Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris)—and I thank him for his presence. He wrote on 1 February:
Dear Prime Minister,
I have read with care your letter of 30 January 1990 to Mr. Terence Higgins. Since the issues raised cover a number of departmental responsibilities I am writing to seek clarification of certain aspects of your letter.
I would be glad if you could clear up the following:—

1. Which statements in your letters, Ministerial statements and official correspondence were in each case either incorrect or require clarification?
2. What in each of the said letters, Ministerial statements and official correspondence was either incorrect or requires clarification?
3. Which, if any, of the Ministerial statements referred to were made in the House?"


I remind the House of what the Prime Minister said on 30 January in her letter to my right hon. and learned Friend:
I regret to say that a re-examination of Departmental papers has brought to light information which shows that there were a number of statements in my letterss, and in other Ministerial statements and official correspondence, which were incorrect or required clarification.
My right hon. and learned Friend received an answer to his questions on the very same day:
Dear Mr. Morris,
I am writing on the Prime Minister's behalf to thank you for your letter of 1 February"—
he does not yet have an answer.
This is receiving attention and I shall ensure that a reply is sent to you as soon as possible.
Even Conservative Members will understand that this was not quite a routine letter. How many of them receive letters from the Prime Minister's secretary signed, "Yours sincerely, Charles Powell." Mr. Charles Powell does not spend his time acknowledging routine letters. What on earth did the principal private secretary to the Prime Minister, responsible for foreign affairs, have to do with the case of Colin Wallace and the statements made by the Prime Minister on it?
I can only imagine that the Prime Minister said to him, "Charles, this is a matter for you to handle. After all, you have all the expertise from the Westland affair." So regurgitate my right hon. and learned Friend's letter and I ask for a full explanation. I shall give the Minister plenty of time in which to reply, and I am sure that he will welcome the opportunity to answer me fully.
I wish to ask the Minister a final question of which he has had notice: why on earth was General Gerald Whiteley, the director of Army legal services, ever involved in the case of Colin Wallace? What on earth was he doing meddling with the Court of Appeal?
These are serious questions; the House of Commons deserves a full answer to them.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): First, I echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about the loss of our colleague Harold McCusker. We send our condolences to his wife and family.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow [Interruption.] Were it not for his intervention in this matter I would not have read "War Without Honour", about the exploits of Captain Holroyd, or "Who Framed Colin Wallace?" by Paul Foot. The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues about the case of Colin Wallace, and, with his usual courtesy, he gave notice on Friday of the three particular questions to which he seeks answers. I shall deal with the latter tonight and with any other essential issues as time permits.
I know that my response will not satisfy all those who choose to see in Mr. Wallace's various allegations the evidence that they seek to justify their belief in an all-embracing conspiracy by Crown servants against the Government. That does not deter me from explaining the available facts to the House once again, since the facts are more important in this matter, rather than speculation that cannot be substantiated.
As many hon. Members know, Mr. Wallace was employed as a civil servant in the headquarters in Northern Ireland between 1968 and 1975. He served in the successive grades of assistant information officer, information officer and senior information officer.
It was worth reminding the House at this point of the situation that confronted the security forces in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s. By that time, law and order in the province had deteriorated to so great a degree that the Government concluded that it was essential to direct the Army to play a major role in support of the police to fight terrorism. That was a daunting task. The IRA was engaged in a campaign of bombings, assassinations and maiming on an unprecedented and horrific scale, supporting that violence with a campaign of virulent propaganda.
It is a tribute to the many Crown servants who served in Northern Ireland then that they put so much effort into dealing with the extreme difficulties that they faced. For them, the learning curve was steep. It was essential to regain the initiative, and effective measures were imperative to counter both the terrorists and their propaganda. Explaining the true purpose of the work of the security forces and countering IRA propaganda were key ingredients in restoring law and order in the community.
Mr. Wallace was one of a number in the Government information service who played their part. By all accounts, Mr. Wallace was an extremely hard worker. He devoted considerable personal effort to understanding any aspect of the complex world of Northern Ireland that might have been relevant to the fight against terrorism.
As each promotion increased his responsibilities, his efforts were increasingly widened. By all accounts, he took great interest in collecting any information, story, or rumour which might be of interest.
Like all information officers, his duties required him to exercise discretion when deciding how best to communicate with the media, and how much to say on each occasion. That does not mean to say that his exercise of discretion was unfettered. All information officers are expected to operate within the limits of the authority given to them, and to demonstrate constantly that they are interpreting their duties properly. In particular, the release of classified documents is not a matter which is left to the sole discretion of individual information officers.
The extent of Mr. Wallace's discretion in the handling of classified information falls within the ambit of Mr. Calcutt's inquiry.
After Mr. Wallace had been transferred to another post, and had left his job in Headquarters Northern Ireland, he provided a journalist with a classified document. He did so without seeking or receiving authority. The act was almost immediately discovered. Mr. Wallace initially denied and then admitted it.
The view was taken that his act required disciplinary action, and it was concluded that dismissal was appropriate. Mr. Wallace appealed to the Civil Service appeal board, which recommended that, in the light of his earlier good service, he should be allowed to resign. He and the Ministry of Defence accepted that recommendation, and he resigned from the Civil Service in 1975. He clearly felt that he had suffered an injustice, and he sought to air his grievances. In recent years, one of his contentions in this context has been that he was dismissed because he refused to engage in improper activities. He has alleged


that during the 1970s the security forces and Crown servants serving in Northern Ireland had engaged in a variety of activities which he seemed to think improper or illegal. He has also alleged that the security forces deliberately covered up information relating to homosexual activities at Kincora. In 1981 he was convicted of manslaughter and has since contended variously that the verdict was unsound and that he was framed. More recently his letters to Government Departments have included the allegation that the project called Clockwork Orange had been undertaken by Crown servants in Northern Ireland in 1974 and had included the issue of defamatory material aimed at Ministers and Members of Parliament.
Mr. Wallace's case has been brought back into the limelight by the written answer that I gave and letters that I sent to hon. Members at the end of last month. In them I volunteered information to correct the record concerning inaccuracies in information previously given to hon. Members by Ministers. I did that because it was right to do so. In the same spirit, inquiries have been commissioned into two related matters. I must tell the House again that nothing discovered in the process leading to the public correction of those inaccuracies constitutes any evidence to corroborate Mr. Wallace's allegations about illegal activities or about the use of disinformation by Crown servants to denigrate Ministers and hon. Members.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Mr. Colin Wallace has alleged that he informed his superiors when he was an Army information officer that he had evidence that boys in the Kincora boys' home had been abused and were being abused. Was that information acted on? Is there any record of those allegations having been made to superiors? There is grave disquiet in Northern Ireland and surely it would be much better to have a full investigation into the whole issue of the Kincora boys' home.

Mr. Hamilton: I remind the hon. Gentleman that there have been two full inquiries into the Kincora boys' home, one by Chief Constable Terry from Sussex and one by Judge Hughes. The opportunity was given to Mr. Wallace to give evidence to the Hughes inquiry but he found reasons for not doing so, which were that he would not be covered by the Official Secrets Act. There have been opportunities for him to give evidence and he has not done so. To date we have no evidence whatever, any evidence on which we can work, which indicates that Mr. Wallace had the sort of evidence that we needed to gain convictions over the Kincora affair earlier than actually happened.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it true that MI5 or MI6 obstructed or blocked an inquiry into the Kincora affair in 1973, 1974 or 1975?

Mr. Hamilton: Those are unsubstantiated rumours that have been put down.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Are they true?

Mr. Hamilton: There is no evidence whatever that they are. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence that that is the case he should present it. There is no evidence about that whatever.
Some hon. Members have intimated that we would not have commissioned the inquiry by Mr. Calcutt had it not already become clear that Mr. Wallace should not have been dismissed. That is not so. Available papers record

that Mr. Wallace did provide a journalist with a classified document, and that it was felt right at the time that he should be dismissed. The reason for asking Mr. Calcutt to look into the dismissal procedure is to enable him to consider whether, with the benefit of 15 years of hindsight, the presentation of his case to the Civil Service appeal board was entirely fair. Mr. Calcutt will consider whether, in comparison with the handling of a similar case today, Mr. Wallace was hard done by. No evidence has been found which justifies the theory of a conspiracy to remove Mr. Wallace because he refused to take part in Clockwork Orange.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow for giving me advance notice of questions. He asked me to identify those earlier ministerial statements which were incorrect and those which required clarification. As my written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) on 30 January made clear, Mr. Wallace undertook duties beyond those described explicitly in his formal job description. An additional job description was drafted to cover those additional duties, but they are not recorded in any subsequent approved and issued job description.
The letter that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) on 30 March 1987 said that the job description given to the Civil Service appeal board was the only one applicable to Mr. Wallace's job. To the extent that it was the only one that formally existed, that was true, but it was felt right to acknowledge the existence of a draft that was brought to light last year.
Re-examination of files indicated that Mr. Wallace had undertaken unattributable covert briefing, which probably included disinformation designed to discredit the Provisional IRA. It was considered that this should also be put on the record to correct statements about the nature of Mr. Wallace's duties made in the Prime Minister's letter of 30 March 1987 to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and any misunderstandings that may unwittingly have been communicated to other right hon. and hon. Members.
My answer also explained that documents had recently come to light that made reference to a project called Clockwork Orange. Those documents made it plain that this was to have been an exercise to plant a story designed to discredit the leadership of the Provisional IRA but that its implementation was never approved. In a letter to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), dated 15 August 1988, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) and in an answer given on 10 January 1989 my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), each in his capacity as Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, stated that they had no evidence that a project of that name had ever existed. That was a true statement of the information available to them. When information relating to Clockwork Orange was found, it was considered proper to put the record straight.
I also wrote to the hon. Member for Brent, East to add to the information that I had been able to provide previously about a mock raid on Aldergrove airport. He had asked a number of questions on the subject and it was felt appropriate to make the additional information available to him. Two errors of fact were also corrected in that letter. The records previously examined showed only that Mr. William Black had been shot in 1974 with a Sterling sub-machine gun. Papers re-examined last year


contained the additional information that the weapon was a model L34A1, which is fitted with an integral suppressor or silencer. That information was pertinent to the questions that the hon. Member has asked. Other papers indicated that the Ingram MAC 10 sub-machine gun had been issued at an earlier date than had previously been indicated. That information was accordingly passed to the hon. Member to correct an answer given on 15 December 1988.
I should now like to turn to the reference made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow to the words "such representations." It is important to put that point, which the hon. Gentleman somewhat laboured, in context. The hon. Gentleman asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister:
what recent representations have been received by her Cabinet secretariat relating to events at the Kincora boys' home in Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister replied:
I am advised that there have been no such representations from Members of Parliament and members of the public."—[Official Report, 15 November 1989; Vol. 160, c. 269.]
That seems to be a pretty standard answer. I take the hon. Gentleman's word for it that the word "such" was underlined. He should not ask me why that was, but I have nothing further to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Would the Minister like to comment on today's revelations that in 1973 Mr. Wallace's superior officer, Mr. Peter Broderick, saw and initialled Mr. Wallace's report drawing attention to systematic child abuse at Kincora? Does it not worry him that that continued for a further seven years after it had been brought to the attention of senior Army officers? Has he seen the statement in today's newspapers reporting the views of Sir George Terry, who conducted one of the earlier inquiries into Kincora? He says:
I am sure that in the light of all that is now being said, any inquiry that can look at everything would be a very wise step".
Mr. Justice Hughes has been prayed in aid to say that we need no further inquiry. He now states that, contrary to the Government's position, he did not receive the papers that Colin Wallace submitted to the Prime Minister in 1984, although the House has been told that those papers were made available. The Minister has now told the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) that the originals of the documents submitted to the Prime Minister have disappeared from the Prime Minister's office and cannot be traced. Is that not causing the Minister concern? There is something more important than a job description involved here.

Mr. Hamilton: I cannot comment on all those points. If Mr. Broderick has evidence about Kincora, he should take it to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which is the body to deal with these matters. If he finds that difficult and feels that this is covered by the Official Secrets Act 1911, he should take the matter up with the Director of Army Security, who certaintly will help him.
It is typical of all the allegations that we have heard that people are more than happy to make statements to newspapers about what should happen, but when they are given the opportunity to present the facts—we are looking for facts—to the authorities, we do not get them. That has been the history all the way. Massive assertions are made,

but people are not prepared to present the facts to the authorities, who would be more than happy to deal with them.
I should now like to turn to a number of serious allegations that were raised by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in the Adjournment debate on Tuesday 6 February. Those allegations about the conduct of civil servants, members of the security and intelligence services and others suggest that they have been or may have been involved in the dissemination of false information about Members of Parliament. I remind the House of the points that I made last Tuesday. It is no part of the official duties of any Crown servant to disseminate false information about Members of Parliament in order to denigrate them in any way. All Governments and hon. Members on both sides of the House would regard any such action as unacceptable. Government servants are well aware of the conduct expected of them and of the severe consequences that they might suffer in any case where those standards of conduct were breached.
I had hoped that the statement that I made in the debate on Tuesday would enable hon. Members to draw a clear distinction between disinformation aimed at hon. Members and cases in the early 1970s when disinformation was used to denigrate the Provisional IRA. As I said then, the Government judge that no useful purpose would be served by an inquiry now into disinformation designed to denigrate the Provisional IRA so many years ago, under previous Administrations, in a policy framework long since changed and amid all the operational stresses of the early and peak years of a very difficult emergency.
I repeat that the Government regard disinformation aimed at Members of Parliament or former Ministers as a quite different and special matter which was dealt with by the Prime Minister's statement in 1987. I must say again that no evidence of any substance has emerged from our review of papers to put that statement into question.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hamilton: I cannot give way because I have other comments to make.
There seems to be misapprehension in some Members' minds that unattributable covert briefing represents an unacceptable practice and that use of classified information in that context is improper. There is nothing wrong in using classified information during unattributable briefing, provided that the briefing is for proper purposes and that the disclosure of classified information has been properly authorised. I know of no reason to believe that, contrary to normal practice, Mr. Wallace was given total discretion to release whatever classified information he wished to disclose.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I tell the Minister plainly that the inquiry by the former Prime Minister and myself into dirty tricks certainly did not include the disinformation against Members of Parliament between 1971 and 1975? That should be inquired into, because someone authorised that to be done.

Mr. Hamilton: I am sorry, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I was referring to the inquiry carried out by the head of the security services, under the auspices of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That inquiry investigated that matter in great


depth and the head of the security services found no evidence that that campaign of disinformation had been carried out by his security services or even by a disaffected group within the security services.
As my right hon. Friend and I have assured the House, the papers that have come to light on the Colin Wallace case do not contain any evidence to support his allegations about a "smear" campaign about Members of Parliament. As I have described already, the only element of his claims about disinformation that has been confirmed is that an

operation known as Clockwork Orange was conceived. The documents found show that that operation was, I repeat, aimed at the Provisional IRA—not at Members of Parliament—and was not approved.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.